Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This may sound like a very dense, stupid, dump question, but what is the difference between anarchy and communism?

    Also, if someone was classified as being a 'leftie', what sort of views would you expect that person to have? And similarly for a 'rightie'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    type in the words and ask wikipedia (ask google) itl tell roughly what you need to know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by johncleaner)
    This may sound like a very dense, stupid, dump question, but what is the difference between anarchy and communism?

    Also, if someone was classified as being a 'leftie', what sort of views would you expect that person to have? And similarly for a 'rightie'?
    'Anarchy' is a much more extreme variation of the laissez-faire attitude (although more of an ideology than a mere sense of apathy). Basically the belief that governments exist only to tell people what to do (kind of the entire purpose, but still...) and are unneccessarily elitist. Anarchists seek to dissolve all forms of authority, in order to let people be 'liberated' (ie. victimised). Communists are a confusing bunch. There are Marxists, Trotsykists, Leninists (dare I say it, Stalinists, even) ... all of whom have their own political viewpoint. The basic principle of idealogical communism is equality. Although individuals like Stalin may warp these ideals to their own purposes, Marx intended that all people should be treated equally, ie. street cleaning lady serves just as much a purpose to society as Neurosurgeon, so should be treated the same.

    However, I can see why you would be confused. The final ideal of communism is the dissolution of governments, and people automatically wanting to be treated equally to their neighbour, thereby rendering governments obsolete. However, this relies too heavily on 'human decency', which we all know is questionable at the best of times. Anarchists seek more-or-less the same thing ultimately, people living in harmony without being oppressed under the bootheel of governmental control. So I suppose they are quite similar, as they are both equally unfeasible.

    'Leftie' and 'Rightie' refer to people on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

    'Left wing' is a generally descriptive term that refers to a very varied cluster of ideologies (including socialism, communism, social democracy, welfare statism, contemporary American liberalism, some versions of anarchism, etc.) Leftists believe in human equality and seek to advocate policies that reduce inequality, such as: Reduction or elimination of legal protections for private property rights, greater regulation / expropriation of private economic activity, stringent limitations on the right to inherit wealth, higher tax burdens on the rich and the middle-class, and / or the provision of more tax-supported government services and, of course, money payments to the poor.

    'Right wing' is the (to an extent) opposite of the above. It is an umbrella bracket that covers several different systems, from the nearly-liberal, to the highly authoritarian: Including, conservative, reactionary or even fascist political ideologies. Righties are, by their very definiton, highly opposed to social change. Right wing ideologies tend to emphasize the values of order, patriotism, social cohesion, and a personal sense of duty that makes the individual citizen who 'knows his place' responsive to discipline from his political and social superiors.

    Hope that helps.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, Mr White covered that pretty well. If you were looking for views on specific issues, then in general:

    Left wing
    pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, likely to take a more liberal attitude towards things like drugs, sex and asylum seekers.

    Right Wing
    the opposite

    Of course, that's very general and over-simplifed, and there are always exceptions. Some people are all over the place and don't really fit easily into either group.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Of course, that's very general and over-simplifed, and there are always exceptions. Some people are all over the place and don't really fit easily into either group.
    We call them 'British political parties'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Wow, Mr White covered that pretty well. If you were looking for views on specific issues, then in general:

    Left wing
    pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, likely to take a more liberal attitude towards things like drugs, sex and asylum seekers.

    Right Wing
    the opposite

    Of course, that's very general and over-simplified
    Yes....it is rather. Your description of "left wing" is perhaps more a description of "liberal". Left/right is a more economic thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    'Anarchy' is a much more extreme variation of the laissez-faire attitude (although more of an ideology than a mere sense of apathy). Basically the belief that governments exist only to tell people what to do (kind of the entire purpose, but still...) and are unneccessarily elitist. Anarchists seek to dissolve all forms of authority, in order to let people be 'liberated' (ie. victimised). Communists are a confusing bunch. There are Marxists, Trotsykists, Leninists (dare I say it, Stalinists, even) ... all of whom have their own political viewpoint. The basic principle of idealogical communism is equality. Although individuals like Stalin may warp these ideals to their own purposes, Marx intended that all people should be treated equally, ie. street cleaning lady serves just as much a purpose to society as Neurosurgeon, so should be treated the same.

    However, I can see why you would be confused. The final ideal of communism is the dissolution of governments, and people automatically wanting to be treated equally to their neighbour, thereby rendering governments obsolete. However, this relies too heavily on 'human decency', which we all know is questionable at the best of times. Anarchists seek more-or-less the same thing ultimately, people living in harmony without being oppressed under the bootheel of governmental control. So I suppose they are quite similar, as they are both equally unfeasible.

    'Leftie' and 'Rightie' refer to people on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

    'Left wing' is a generally descriptive term that refers to a very varied cluster of ideologies (including socialism, communism, social democracy, welfare statism, contemporary American liberalism, some versions of anarchism, etc.) Leftists believe in human equality and seek to advocate policies that reduce inequality, such as: Reduction or elimination of legal protections for private property rights, greater regulation / expropriation of private economic activity, stringent limitations on the right to inherit wealth, higher tax burdens on the rich and the middle-class, and / or the provision of more tax-supported government services and, of course, money payments to the poor.

    'Right wing' is the (to an extent) opposite of the above. It is an umbrella bracket that covers several different systems, from the nearly-liberal, to the highly authoritarian: Including, conservative, reactionary or even fascist political ideologies. Righties are, by their very definiton, highly opposed to social change. Right wing ideologies tend to emphasize the values of order, patriotism, social cohesion, and a personal sense of duty that makes the individual citizen who 'knows his place' responsive to discipline from his political and social superiors.

    Hope that helps.
    good post, but can i just add something....right wing does not necessarily mean highly opposed to social change, this misinterpretation is one of the reasons why many scholars now quetion the very relevance of the left/right specturm. to suggest people on the right are opposed to social change implies conservatism with a small c, but conservatism with a small c is not necessarily confined to the right. consider a socialist country for example, a conservative in this situation would desire the stabilisation and presevation of the socio-economic system in place wheras those on the 'right' could desire fundamental and radical change to that system.

    even without this example, people on the 'right wing' of the specturm can desire very extreme and far reaching change. some right wing ideologies advocated the reorganisation of society in the belief that out of this a New Man would be created which was their ultimate goal....interestingly this goal was shared by many of those ideologies on the extreme left.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Your description of "left wing" is perhaps more a description of "liberal". Left/right is a more economic thing.
    Yes, I know that. But most people I know who'd call themselves "left wing" or "right wing" would say that's how they feel on those issues. A lot of the time being socially liberal and economically left wing seem to go hand in hand. (although having said that I know plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically more right wing... although stangely enough, not the other way round)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    We call them 'British political parties'.
    very true
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Yes, I know that. But most people I know who'd call themselves "left wing" or "right wing" would say that's how they feel on those issues. A lot of the time being socially liberal and economically left wing seem to go hand in hand. (although I having said that I know plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically more right wing... although stangely enough, not the other way round)
    I'm not so sure. I'm a bit of a righty myself. Let's see how I fare on your assessment

    pro-gay rights? - Yes. Upto the point I don't object to gay marriage.

    pro-choice? - Absolutely.

    anti-death penalty - No. String em up. The more the merrier.

    Sex? IMO the government has no place in the bedroom (see gay rights)

    Drugs? As long as I don't have to pay for peoples treatment I don't care.

    Asylum seekers? - Complicated issue. There are lots of different types of asylum seeker. If an asylum seeker has been sentenced to death in his home country for terrorism, he's certainly an asylum seeker. But, is he the sort of asylum seeker we need? Do we owe a duty to protect a terrorist? I think not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    have i bored people to death again? :confused:
    i always seem to post things and it either stops the thread or not get replied to.
    and i still have no rep... should i be more controversial?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm not so sure. I'm a bit of a righty myself. Let's see how I fare on your assessment

    pro-gay rights? - Yes. Upto the point I don't object to gay marriage.

    pro-choice? - Absolutely.

    anti-death penalty - No. String em up. The more the merrier.

    Sex? IMO the government has no place in the bedroom (see gay rights)

    Drugs? As long as I don't have to pay for peoples treatment I don't care.

    Asylum seekers? - Complicated issue. There are lots of different types of asylum seeker. If an asylum seeker has been sentenced to death in his home country for terrorism, he's certainly an asylum seeker. But, is he the sort of asylum seeker we need? Do we owe a duty to protect a terrorist? I think not.
    Like I said, very generalised and over-simplified. I'm sure very few people would fit perfectly into either. It's probably best to avoid trying to pigeonhole people like that really, but there you go.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by legon)
    have i bored people to death again? :confused:
    i always seem to post things and it either stops the thread or not get replied to.
    and i still have no rep... should i be more controversial?
    I seem to find that a lot. And you don't really have to be controversial to get rep. i got neg repped once for saying that my sister had to applied to Salford uni. :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by legon)
    have i bored people to death again? :confused:
    i always seem to post things and it either stops the thread or not get replied to.
    and i still have no rep... should i be more controversial?
    Yes. Try saying something like

    " I think America should withdraw completely from Iraq, abandon conventional weapons and instead start using napalm before progressing to a full nuclear attack"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    anti-death penalty - No. String em up. The more the merrier.
    Why? I see no reason to do that other than to quench bloodlust. I am of the opinion that condemned criminals are a valuable resource, and, instead of sending them 6-feet under, they should be put to work for the rest of their lives, without being paid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    really? thats odd. what happened? you said you sister applied to salford and someone gave negative rep for that? :confused:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by legon)
    really? thats odd. what happened? you said you sister applied to salford and someone gave negative rep for that? :confused:
    Yep. Didn't even leave a comment to tell me why. Strange.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes. Try saying something like

    " I think America should withdraw completely from Iraq, abandon conventional weapons and instead start using napalm before progressing to a full nuclear attack"
    i think that might work! thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Yep. Didn't even leave a comment to tell me why. Strange.
    That's not strange. Whenever I want to bad-rep a particular person, I just click on 'find last post' in their profile and use that. In this case, perhaps the Salford thing was your last post at the time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Why? I see no reason to do that other than to quench bloodlust. I am of the opinion that condemned criminals are a valuable resource, and, instead of sending them 6-feet under, they should be put to work for the rest of their lives, without being paid.
    Chain gangs could indeed be a useful alternative.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.