NationStates Jolt Archive

"Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb." -Spiro Agnew.

I first heard this phrase when it was repeated by Madeline Albright(?). In any case I was wondering if there was any real truth to the statement, (Not among the general american public, I fear I already know that answer) among the politically active and informed such as yourselves. I'm going to expand a little:

The ultimate question really is, would you prefer Fascism over Anarchy, is you had to accept one of the absolutes*? And would you be willing to take action to defend either course, or would you simply brace yourself against the storm.

*I recognize the unlikeliness of such a situation

Poll to come, naturally.

Long live anarchy!

Absolute fascism is the antithesis of freedom; I would rather have almost any system but it.

Anarcho-fascism.

I'll go with Fascism, both suck but hopefully after fascism gets overthrown you'll be left with a resemblance of a nation.....Anarchy just gives you smoldering ruins.

I dont like either but I belive facicism is the better option beacuse at least you can keep your head low and mouth shut and for the most part be alright. In anarchy however any one could choose to kill you so Facism at least only have to watch the goverment anarchy everyone.

I'll go with Fascism, both suck but hopefully after fascism gets overthrown you'll be left with a resemblance of a nation.....Anarchy just gives you smoldering ruins.

...assuming the position is permanent.

As a discordian I had a strong temptation to vote Oreos but I resisted. If fascisim comes anarchy will follow in the form of a rebelion, or as it says in the Principia Discordia impositon of order equals escalation of chaos.

...assuming the position is permanent.

awww........still fascism I would rather be oppressed than dead

As a discordian I had a strong temptation to vote Oreos but I resisted. If fascisim comes anarchy will follow in the form of a rebelion, or as it says in the Principia Discordia impositon of order equals escalation of chaos.

Unless it is 1984, in which case Big Brother SHALL PREVAIL! MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!:)

You would not nessecarily die in anarchy. (Although if you lived in the city I'd watch out). In any case I think it would be easier to rebuild from the ground up rather than having to overthrow a Fascist state. Besides, I know that between my mouth and my political views, wouldn't live long under a totalitarian regime anyway. *Sigh*

I would rather live under a fascist government. If the government is moral, I have nothing to worry about. If it's immoral, I'll probably die in a concentration camp some where for refusing to obey or at least until a rebellion frees the camp.

In anarchy, I might be able to live without fear of Big Brother or one of his siblings, but I'll live in fear or the madman running about with no government funded police force to catch him.

I'll take the more definite outcome. Order over chaos. Of course, they are both poison and it's better not to drink either.

Probably fascism, at least in a fascist regime, society would not crumble to the ground as quickly as in an anarchy. Fascism promises some form of safety, anarchy promises nothing and safety is better than nothing.

I won't even pretend to be an altruist.

Fascism if I'm going to be in a senior government position in the regime.

Anyone care to discuss the Quote itself?

I think it really is true. Though, perhaps any people will slowly recede into more and more comfort as time goes on. This comfort, changed by the introduction of modern democratic systems, now seems to rely on placing more and more duties into the government in an attempt to have less and less responsibility. Could modern day Americans (or any other people) really come to a "realization" that big brother can take care of everything as long as you "behave" yourself?

I won't even pretend to be an altruist.

Fascism if I'm going to be in a senior government position in the regime.

Fascism by a huge stretch.

Some of the most noble spirits in modern history confronted fascism.

Anarchy is the worst-possible case.

And would you be willing to take action to defend either course, or would you simply brace yourself against the storm.


Anyone?

Anarchy so long as their is nothing preventing people from bandin gtogether for mutual protection.

I would sit on the sidelines, watching the anarchists and facists battle to the death...while munching on oreos.

of course fascism

That's a tough one... I despise the 'above the law' supreme ruler, lack of democratic oversight and constant warfare of Fascism (not to mention the secret police). I dread the inefficienct, chaotic environment which I believe would come hand in hand with Anarchy. At least Fascism has been shown to work, at least for a short period of time, and for the 'majority population'. Anarchy hasn't had the opportunity to really prove itself.

I'd have to go with Fascism. I would assume that the fascists would declare war on the Anarchists, and I don't rate the Anarchist's having much of a chance when the highly militarized statist troops come in and start busting heads.

I'll go with Fascism, both suck but hopefully after fascism gets overthrown you'll be left with a resemblance of a nation.....Anarchy just gives you smoldering ruins.

No, Fascism gets you a system that will probably leave you with a communist revolution.

Anarchy will eventually grow a society from the ruins. Anarchy is a system. It is not itself the method used to arive at it. Hunter-gatherers live in anarchy. They rather enjoy it. The only real problem they feel they have to contend with is nearby people who have governments and want to take their land or exploit their labor. Which is just neighboring fascism.

That's a tough one... I despise the 'above the law' supreme ruler, lack of democratic oversight and constant warfare of Fascism (not to mention the secret police). I dread the inefficienct, chaotic environment which I believe would come hand in hand with Anarchy. At least Fascism has been shown to work, at least for a short period of time, and for the 'majority population'. Anarchy hasn't had the opportunity to really prove itself.

I'd have to go with Fascism. I would assume that the fascists would declare war on the Anarchists, and I don't rate the Anarchist's having much of a chance when the highly militarized statist troops come in and start busting heads.

Well, yes. It "works" for the majority of the population. But then again so does serial killing. It effectivly turns the killer into a killer and the murder victims into murder victims. No other system of civilian murder has been shown to work as effectivly for both the killer and the killed.

Whether or not you'd like it to work is another matter. In fascism you risk death daily for nothing more than your opnion. Our capacity for independent thought is what makes us human. It's the literal definition of "homo sapiens." If fascism works for you are not a human being, or you are in the tiny elite. In Anarchy at least you get to be who you are.

As for your "militarized statist troops" bit... It's out of place. Yes, if you have anarchy you will be conquered by the fascists. But we're operating with a thesis in which you can have one or the other, but not the middle ground to guard against either. And left to itself, Anarchy usually ends up with social differentiation. To say that the problem with Anarchy is that you'll get conquered by Anarchists makes sense, but doesn't really belong in the debate, because you're reframing the debate as "would you like fascism now of fascism later."

I would sit on the sidelines, watching the anarchists and facists battle to the death...while munching on oreos.

The communists would execute you as a counter-revolutionary or the fascists would execute you for sedition.

I dont like either but I belive facicism is the better option beacuse at least you can keep your head low and mouth shut and for the most part be alright. In anarchy however any one could choose to kill you so Facism at least only have to watch the goverment anarchy everyone.

A hero dies but one death, a coward dies a thousand.

In anarchy the whole world doesn't immediatly turn to you with daggers shooting from their eyes. Your security is dependent on your ability to form social networks. In an anarchistic system egalitarianism is enforced. That's why it remains Anarchic. People won't want to kill you (at least not out in the open) because you will presumably have friends who will protect or, failing that, avenge you.

In fascism you risk death daily for nothing more than your opnion.

In Anarchy you risk death daily for nothing more than being alive.

At least with Fascism you get cool black uniforms :p

The misconception that all the Fascists here seem to be operating under here is that Anarchy only exists as a temporary state of a stratified society that suddenly has it's enforcement system removed.

A jellyfish is not a snail that had its shell removed. It's a jellyfish. It never had a shell as a support structure and does just fine without one.

Anarchy is a social system in its own right. Even without a government in place there are still social conventions that bring stability to everyday life. People, by and large, honor their debts, help their neighbors, don't live in constant fear for their lives.

The problem with Anarchy is not that it doesn't work. It's that more organized and stratified groups will mobilize superior numbers to destroy them. Assuming that your Anarchy is going to continue to exist, as this far-fetched scenario does, the worst part about Anarchy is that you're probably responsible for your own food production and are going to have a pretty dull diet, as well as fairly limited entertainment options.

In Anarchy you risk death daily for nothing more than being alive.

At least with Fascism you get cool black uniforms :p

You get the same thing with Fascism. Why do you think that college and highschool students used to get into so many fist-fights in the streets.

*sigh* I wish our youths had that sort of political passion these days.

Well, yes. It "works" for the majority of the population. But then again so does serial killing. It effectivly turns the killer into a killer and the murder victims into murder victims. No other system of civilian murder has been shown to work as effectivly for both the killer and the killed.

You're mixing your Nazi-ism and Fascism. Fascism need not have the racial element; it didn't originally. In it's base form, fascism means state superiority and control of everyday life, and extreme militancy. For the average person, it means stability, work, and the fear that you don't say the wrong thing to the wrong person; which is true in any totalitarian state. At least it was functional.

Whether or not you'd like it to work is another matter. In fascism you risk death daily for nothing more than your opnion. Our capacity for independent thought is what makes us human. It's the literal definition of "homo sapiens." If fascism works for you are not a human being, or you are in the tiny elite. In Anarchy at least you get to be who you are.

As for your "militarized statist troops" bit... It's out of place. Yes, if you have anarchy you will be conquered by the fascists. But we're operating with a thesis in which you can have one or the other, but not the middle ground to guard against either. And left to itself, Anarchy usually ends up with social differentiation. To say that the problem with Anarchy is that you'll get conquered by Anarchists makes sense, but doesn't really belong in the debate, because you're reframing the debate as "would you like fascism now of fascism later."

I don't have a lot of faith in the ability of an Anarchist society lasting very long in a modern environment. I find the entire concept Utopian at best. People will band into group affiliations and internecine strife will break out eventually. It's human nature. At least in a fascist state, there is a modicum of order, gauranteed work, and you know the state will accomplish things, such as major infrastructural works. The need for anarchy to be 'non-coercive' and the dogmatic opposition to hierarchal leadership does not bode well for an anarchist society to get anything done.

Keep in mind, I don't like either option. But I believe that society requires the stability that the state provides.

In anarchy the whole world doesn't immediatly turn to you with daggers shooting from their eyes. Your security is dependent on your ability to form social networks.
I'll take the fascism.

If the United States under went anarchy, there will be chaos and bloodshed, and everyone will be seperated into little tribes of their own beliefs, thus starting fascism. But anarchy will never survive, anarchy will be demolished wherever it may stand. It will never exist, ever.

at least anarchism works. fascism can't even make the trains run on time.

Fergi America;11675042']I'll take the fascism.

where your security doesn't exist?

The problem with Anarchy is not that it doesn't work. It's that more organized and stratified groups will mobilize superior numbers to destroy them.

And anarchists can't shoot back because...?

"Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb." -Spiro Agnew.

interestingly, the state has lots and lots of truncheons and bombs which it uses daily, while the anarchists don't really use either. its a strange sort of choice that way, isn't it?

interestingly, the state has lots and lots of truncheons and bombs which it uses daily, while the anarchists don't really use either. its a strange sort of choice that way, isn't it?

Considering that it was Spiro Agnew who said that, the irony is multiplied.

Considering that it was Spiro Agnew who said that, the irony is multiplied.

indeed. i wonder how many bombs the administration he was part of had dropped the day he said that.

Look, I don't intend to be a whore, but USA already did pick Fascism over anarchy. Or rather, they continually make that decision when the dillemma arises. I'm not bitching about the current admin and whther or not they're fascist, but I am pointing out that the voting majority of USA seems inclined to exchange freedom for safety. I'm not even judging that decision. Personally I would go for Anarchism, in that I think it'llend that way in the near-future anyway. I seriously can see anarcho-capitalism rising within a few decdes. I'm not sure that I support it, though, it wouldn't be too much different to life now I suppose. I prefer the current state of political moderation, but I suppose there are plenty worse things than anarchism that could happen...

hmm, another accidental rant. Heres the basics:

Americans consistently pick security over freedom.
I would pick Anarchism because I think anarcho-capitalism is not so bad.
Anarchism will probably happen soon anyway.

Well, let's see... I could defend myself against random crazies and gangers in a state of anarchy, but a totalitarian, fascist, government would be pretty much unbearable and possibly unescapable for me. 'Course anarchy wouldn't be much better, what with no infrastructure or luxuries, save what you can loot.

And anarchists can't shoot back because...?

Unless they're organized, they don't trust anyone else to shoot back with them. A fascist state can attack with the might of 3 or 4 groups and then will have the might of the conquered one added to their own.

With anarchy the only way to get people to follow you is by your own personal charisma and with the gifts you will share. That puts a practical limit on the size of any army at about 15 guys. Even a small fascist society can come at you with well over a hundred, and they've got slaves making their weapons for them. The anarchists wouldn't even be out of the machine shop before they were conquered.

Americans consistently pick security over freedom.

that's giving the situation way more credit than it deserves. they don't choose security. they panic and go along with whatever it is a bunch of power mad fucktards tell them is for their own good. i have yet to see any evidence that this has ever resulted in more security except by accident. usually it seems to result in less freedom and less security, and just more powerful fucktards.

I'd go with anarchy, but the majority would choose fascism because they're a bunch of fucking cattle.
And this isn't some obscure hypothetical either, the US started as the most free place in the western world. Low to no taxes, minimal government intervention, etc. The only real set-backs were slavery and inequality of the sexes, and these problems weren't as widespread as is currently made out.
Now look at this Suburban, Midwest-influenced hell-hole . . .
*goes off on a tangent rant*

Unless they're organized, they don't trust anyone else to shoot back with them. A fascist state can attack with the might of 3 or 4 groups and then will have the might of the conquered one added to their own.

With anarchy the only way to get people to follow you is by your own personal charisma and with the gifts you will share. That puts a practical limit on the size of any army at about 15 guys. Even a small fascist society can come at you with well over a hundred, and they've got slaves making their weapons for them. The anarchists wouldn't even be out of the machine shop before they were conquered.

here's the thing - in any place where an actual fascist movement was around and powerful enough to take over, the only group inside any of those countries that ever put up a halfway decent fight was the anarchists.

Unless they're organized, they don't trust anyone else to shoot back with them.

Anarchism is the absence of hierarchical rule, not of organization.

With anarchy the only way to get people to follow you is by your own personal charisma and with the gifts you will share. That puts a practical limit on the size of any army at about 15 guys.

Who said anything about following anybody? Autonomous communes abiding by the principles of free association would agree to cooperate against an aggressor; it makes perfect sense for them to do so, as it benefits them all.

'Anarchism' vs 'Fascism' is probably better...

Anarchism is a workable system, one which provides the greatest freedom to the individual, founded on basic communities of mutual aid.

In any case, either are preferable to 'fascism', one of the worst systems imaginable, though the West may be heading that way in some respects.

Anarchy in truth doesn't even exist. So, if push comes to shove, I'd pick that.

Now, before you start arguing that anarchy does exsist, let me explain by saying that anarchy as in the absence of government doesn't exsist, at least not for very long. Humans as a WHOLE are pack animals. We create pack networks in order to better assure our own survival. Sure, there are lone wolves in the world, and yes they do enjoy a certain modicum of survival. Most humans realize the value of other humans though. In matters of food, safety, mental health, and genetic material, the pack serves best. The moment you start getting organized, you have the early stages of a government.

Now, when you have a pack, you have a government. You may be free of bueacracy, taxes, voting, and other such foolishness, but you still have one. At the lowest level, you have communisim, which if say, america's goverment collapsed today, you'd have first. People would start banding together for mutual survival, everyone would work and share equaly, jobs would be assigned for the good of the whole. Tribalism would come next, as the wiser among the group would eventually have more and more responsability placed upon his or her shoulders. The tribes would then over time give way to Monarchys, or matriarchys, and other forms of low level, reliant governments. It's the way we work. It is what would happen.

Fascism, is the easy choice because you can get away with not thinking at all, which, isn't really a bad thing from a survivalistic stand point. There is order, the is military power, there is work, there is food. If you want to get deep enough, there is even more opportunity to breed as the overt differances that more free systems create are stripped away and the basics are all that are left. The unfortunate exchange lies in the loss of your humanity. As it slowly ebbs away, you become more of an automaton than anything else. And trust me, a revolt would be meaningless. It would do nothing more than distrupt the daily lives of the people content to be controled. Such systems break from the outside in, not the inside out. No matter how rotten, an egg must be cracked by an outside force. Governments are much the same.

So, it really falls down to how much you do, or do not wish to think. There is nothing inherantly wrong with either. Just because people aren't thinking for themselves does not mean they are less more right, wise, intellegent, moral, or any OTHER such rubbish than anyone else. It doesn't even really make them more slothful. It simply means they value a more guarented survival over the right to do whatever fool thing pops into their cute little heads. In truth, the only thing you have no choice but to do in this life is live untill your heart stops. What you do and how you do it is, ultimatly up to you if you but realize that. No choice is better than others once you get past your skin. Just know that you have to live with whatever paths you take.


So, like I said, I'd let it all fall down first. Just for the adventure.

"Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb." -Spiro Agnew.

I first heard this phrase when it was repeated by Madeline Albright(?). In any case I was wondering if there was any real truth to the statement, (Not among the general american public, I fear I already know that answer) among the politically active and informed such as yourselves. I'm going to expand a little:

The ultimate question really is, would you prefer Fascism over Anarchy, is you had to accept one of the absolutes*? And would you be willing to take action to defend either course, or would you simply brace yourself against the storm.

*I recognize the unlikeliness of such a situation

Poll to come, naturally.

Fascism please. Quality of life is generally better under fascism than it is under anarchy. The recovery from anarchy often takes decades longer than recovery from fascism and as often as not the road to recovery from anarchy uses fascism as a halfway house.

They put solzhenitsyn in the gulag, he is the greatest moralist and ethicist since kant. fascism 10 times out of 10, hobbes debunked anarchy before any of us were born.

:rolleyes: Anarchy... although you'd need to specify between (from what I heard, I'm not an expert)
1.left-wing-anarchy (law of the jungle, total darwinism, survival of the fittest etc)
and
2.right-wing-anarchy (extremely harsh moral and social tenets implemented freely by everyone)

I'd choose #2.

As for fascism, I'm italian and I could write tons of books about how much fascism SUCKS!
IMHO what Mrs.Albright said underlines the state of fear most US citizens live in.

I'm not exactly a fan of fascism but its preferable to a full and utter breakdown of society.
But i'm working under the assumption (as it was not specifid otherwise) that the OP was refering to anarchy in the sense of chaotic breakdown, and fascism in the sense of economic/political restrictions.

Since the quote in the OP mentioned the anarchist bomb, I believe anarchy refers to the social-political system, which originated in the 19th century and not the chaos following a breakdown of society.

This way the question boils down to choosing between a system of volunteer order without force, of basic democracy and absolute equality and a system forceful opression, no political and civil rights and the build-in concept of inequality of people, which has proven to both bring havoc to the nation its implied to and the minds of the people it is enforced over. A choice not to hard for me.

Indeed, in a conflict between fascism and anarchism, fascism might win, but not because of a supriority of fascism. Anarchsm will fail because the other nations won't supply weapons to the anarchists, but will happiely sell them to the fascists.

I would rather live under a fascist government. If the government is moral, I have nothing to worry about.

If the government is moral it wouldn't be fascist in the first place!

I chose to destroy them both and find a new free and democratic country. In anarchy you are not safe because any freak with a gun can shoot you etc. and in fascism you make a subtle joke about goverment and police shoots you. So neither is liveable.

If there was no other way around it, I would have to choose Fascism.

Firstly, as it has been stated previously in this thread, a Fascist state can guarantee you a certain degree of safety in the form of an official police force and army as long as you appear to adhere to the governments ideals.
An Anarchic state could not guarantee your safety in such a way, where it would more than likely be survival of the fittest, having to fend off others in order to secure resources.

Secondly, a Fascist state will more than likely have infrastructure and apparatus that would benefit your standard of living eg. hospitals, power stations, government departments.
A nation that descended into anarchy would not be able to provide this kind of organised infrastructure. Hospitals and power stations would not operate properly due to disorganisation of or non-existance of staff.

Thirdly, a Fascist state is a more suitable candidate for revolutionary reform into a Democratic state. Underground opposition would likely gain support from the increasnigly disenchanted peoples, and would be deemed quite heroic. When the fascists are ultimately overthrown, the pre-democracy infrastructure is still there, and so it would be easier for a democratic government to install itself.
An anarchic state would likely be filled with many factions and groups of differing ideology who would try to implement their own government, conflicting with each other more often than not. Trying to bring control over an anarchic state would also be difficult with no police force or organised infrastructure... So it is least suitable for revolutionary reform into a Democratic state.

You get the same thing with Fascism. Why do you think that college and highschool students used to get into so many fist-fights in the streets.

*sigh* I wish our youths had that sort of political passion these days.

You and me both.

Probably fascism, at least in a fascist regime, society would not crumble to the ground as quickly as in an anarchy. Fascism promises some form of safety, anarchy promises nothing and safety is better than nothing.

Anarchy promises freedom.

And if you are not willing to die for Freedom, you don't deserve it in the first place.

1.left-wing-anarchy (law of the jungle, total darwinism, survival of the fittest etc)

what?!

what?!

Yeah. I thought that sounded a bit wierd too.

Since the quote in the OP mentioned the anarchist bomb, I believe anarchy refers to the social-political system, which originated in the 19th century and not the chaos following a breakdown of society.

well, the quote is from spiro agnew, so he was almost certainly just conflating the two.

If there was no other way around it, I would have to choose Fascism.

Firstly, as it has been stated previously in this thread, a Fascist state can guarantee you a certain degree of safety in the form of an official police force and army as long as you appear to adhere to the governments ideals.
An Anarchic state could not guarantee your safety in such a way, where it would more than likely be survival of the fittest, having to fend off others in order to secure resources.

Secondly, a Fascist state will more than likely have infrastructure and apparatus that would benefit your standard of living eg. hospitals, power stations, government departments.
A nation that descended into anarchy would not be able to provide this kind of organised infrastructure. Hospitals and power stations would not operate properly due to disorganisation of or non-existance of staff.

Thirdly, a Fascist state is a more suitable candidate for revolutionary reform into a Democratic state. Underground opposition would likely gain support from the increasnigly disenchanted peoples, and would be deemed quite heroic. When the fascists are ultimately overthrown, the pre-democracy infrastructure is still there, and so it would be easier for a democratic government to install itself.
An anarchic state would likely be filled with many factions and groups of differing ideology who would try to implement their own government, conflicting with each other more often than not. Trying to bring control over an anarchic state would also be difficult with no police force or organised infrastructure... So it is least suitable for revolutionary reform into a Democratic state.

none of that follows from the actual ideology of anarchism.

none of that follows from the actual ideology of anarchism.

Sorry, but under Anarchism that's probably how things would turn out. Anarchism is just like Communism in that it's a Utopian-like ideal that cannot be practical until humanity has been able to somehow mature beyond our natural selfish instincts.

The first "communist" state ended up as a totalitarian dictatorship.
The first "anarchist" state would end up as a chaotic and unstable environment.

Ideology doesn't matter when people can't follow it practically.

Sorry, but under Anarchism that's probably how things would turn out. Anarchism is just like Communism in that it's a Utopian-like ideal that cannot be practical until humanity has been able to somehow mature beyond our natural selfish instincts.

anarchism works precisely because there are a number of natural instincts and attitutdes in humans that favor it, and others that can be shaped by certain institutions to do so. or rather, any serious anarchism does - lifestylists need not apply.

we (the anarchists) knew back when marx was still alive that his system would turn into a totalitarian nightmare. his marginal notes to bakunin's "statism and anarchy" are sort of historically hilarious now, because of how close many of the things bakunin said* (and marx dismissed as balderdash) came to what actually happened later.


though i certainly wouldn't praise bakunin's work uncritically - anarchist he may have been, but he was deep into many of the prejudices of his time

If the government is moral it wouldn't be fascist in the first place!

No, fascism proper is where the government is more imortant than the people. So while the premise for fascism is incorrect, such a government could theoretically do good. History has proven that that is not the case in practice, but history only shows what was, not what can be.

such a government could theoretically do good.

no, it couldn't. it is just physically impossible. the entire ideology, such as it is, requires mindboggling idiocy in the form of anti-intellectualism and opposition to reason and debate (which are the signs of a weak and decadent society that must be destroyed), and the glorification and use of violence and action for its own sake.

Anarchism under the condition that I'm far away from the cities, because they are full of people whose survival depends on skills that wouldn't support them without the working infrastructure of government. Major crazy shit.

Fascism under the condition that I'm in the upper elite ruling class. Major yacht club shit.

Voted oreos because it was the only option with cream filling.

they are full of people whose survival depends on skills that wouldn't support them without the working infrastructure of government.

the state is not necessary to provide and run said infrastructure. it barely does any of it now, and either does it badly or relies on oppression elsewhere to do it well here.

no, it couldn't. it is just physically impossible. the entire ideology, such as it is, requires mindboggling idiocy in the form of anti-intellectualism and opposition to reason and debate (which are the signs of a weak and decadent society that must be destroyed), and the glorification and use of violence and action for its own sake.

Fascism was basically industrialized Roman Imperialism; the Italians trying to relive the 'glory days' while trying to survive the Great Depression. I don't know about you, but the Roman Empire existed for quite some time, with a stretch of relative peace that lasted for a few hundred years. All the elements you just posted were rampant in Roman Times. Hell, they're rampant in certain parts of the modern world (and not to be emulated.)

Physically Impossible is a bit of a stretch. People live in authoritarian regimes elsewhere; China springs to mind.

In a state of anarchy, it's far easier to be completely and totally evil :D






I'm not joking.

Anarchy breeds government.
No government is stable outside 1984,
Anarchy in the Athenian sense would be good for a while, but naturally some spartan would come along and you get dictatorship.

Anarchy in the Capitalist sense is harsh and cruel, while eliminating the hinderance to evolution of the NHS ect (I believe in the NHS, but it is fucking up evolution)

Anarchy in the Communist sense is circular, and allows little room for research and over-produces unneeded materials.

Facism in the Republican sense often leads to half-baked crusades to Arabia.

Facism in the communist sense creates a kickass superpower.

Facism in the Statist sense is what i believe in, State comes first people come second, liberal valued as long as it doesnt threaten the state, nationalisation of business kinda thing, im obviously bias but i believe this would work.

Facism in the Imafuckinggodonearth sense is kinda neat.

Fascism was basically industrialized Roman Imperialism

nah, its not at all the same system but updated. italian fascism used the roman empire for a unifying ego boost, not a model structure. and fascism elsewhere hooked on other semi-mythical past states for their cultures, but also used a different structure entirely.

fascism in general didn't really have a well-thought out governing structure (that'd be too much like wussy liberal or commie theorizing), so it was always sort of in flux anywhere the fascists ruled. all they were going on was that the fascist state was to be an organic entity with a historical destiny that all people in the state are a part of, and that the current state is weak or decadent or had been 'sold out'.

fascism has been useful for gaining power, but its very nature makes it self-destruct really quickly once it has it - unless one of the compromises the particular fascists makes is to allow non-fascists to rule, as in spain (and even there, it had to be propped up by non-fascist countries)

People, by and large, honor their debts, help their neighbors, don't live in constant fear for their lives.


Really? What people have you met? I've generally observed that its cowardice, not some imaginary morality, that keeps people of from killing/robbing/cheating their neighbors. Fear of punishment.
I gotta move to where you're at, it sounds a lot nicer...

As for me, I'll take Fascism. Pure self-interest here.
My personal observations are that a lot of this has to do with psychology, how we perceive ourselves. Both attract failures, generally, since the successful generally are pretty happy with the gig they've got. The Anarchist types I've known are the sorts who see themselves as strong, capable people who COULD take care of themselves... if only all these fools and stupid politics weren't standing in their way. Whereas the (thinly-veiled) Fascists I've known generally were brittle, inflexible people who're so insecure that they don't trust themselves to make the right decision and that any possibility other then the one they beleive is perceived as a threat to those beleifs.
Short version: Arrogance vs. Paranoia.

Me? I don't think it much matters, really, the rich and powerful will always be in control, no matter what flimsy mask they wear, rendering ideology pretty meaningless, since no one will ever abide by it. This is real life and the "good guys" never win.

Now, me, personally, I am what would be called weak by any standards, physically, mentally (no real Useful, technical skills), not particularily charismatic and without any real strong political feeling. Also, I am a lazy SOB. So, I'll sacrifice whatever you like, mouth whatever Big Bro wants to hear and kiss whatever ass needs smooching before I'd get into a competition I'd be sure to lose. I'd rather play by rules that are stacked against me then try to get by alone on the personal ability I lack.

Principles be damned, I want to live.

when i read the last post i shed a tear (*this is to be called bullshiting*)...

the reason why both fascism and anarchism are regarded as extreme is that both are about power and responsibility in two extreme poles of human existance: society vs. the individual. of course nobody would deny power without responsability but that unfortunately is not entirely possible so most would just go for a sense of power (in the "consensual" movement of national elevation of fascism) without any responsability (when it comes to the common individual) if all this didnt seem so extreme and fascism didnt already have the bad reputation it has.

as for anarchism it gives you power over yourself and responsibility over yourself only and as such does not tie you as individual socially (so you'd be as free as human nature allows). this is called individual anarchism (the most idealised version to which i ascribe) but of course it would not be desirable as far as technological progress (for example) is concerned. therefore anarcho-capitalism seems the most viable option for me: social freedom and capitalist (aka modern) infrastructure (and as was mentioned before anyone who thinks infrastructure is held in place by some president or monarch and their government is at best naive). also social concerns for hospitals and all that are misguided... hospitals and schools have worked for hundreds of years without the intervention of government (i mean wtf?).
oh and who will take care of the poor and handicapped and "the less fortunate" (in whatever sense)? natural selection... hopefully! (hey at least nobody is killing them on purpose:p )

so there you go... anarchism... without question

no, it couldn't. it is just physically impossible. the entire ideology, such as it is, requires mindboggling idiocy in the form of anti-intellectualism and opposition to reason and debate (which are the signs of a weak and decadent society that must be destroyed), and the glorification and use of violence and action for its own sake.

To play the Devil's Advocate, in that I actually agree with you, isnt debate and reason as applied to government, an ideology of western culture? It was first practiced by the Greeks and eventually spread out? Certainly tribes in Africa and even some Asian cultures sustain their culture without much debate.

In a state of anarchy, it's far easier to be completely and totally evil

I completely disagree on factors too numerous in nature to be mentioned. If you gathered support (difficult to do in an Anarchy) then maybe you could do evil, but if you were a part of a facist government, evil is as easy as ordering a given number of brainwashed crack-troop to "deal" with a problem. You dont even have to have it on your conscience. I also wonder what your definition of evil is?

The ultimate question really is, would you prefer Fascism over Anarchy, is you had to accept one of the absolutes*? And would you be willing to take action to defend either course, or would you simply brace yourself against the storm.

Depends: am I in power in the fascist society? Because if I get to be the one oppressing people, I'm totally on board.

Seriously though, I'd go with anarchy hands down. It's closer to my political beliefs on the spectrum, it can't possibly be worse than the shite I already have to put up with, and it would make a welcome change from the dull, plodding, incompetant fascism my country has endured for the last 5 years.

As long as we're talking about actual, real-world Anarchy, not socialistic fantasies: Neither.

Nature abhors a vaccum, even a power vacuum...Anarchy is a state where a locality, region, or nation is in power-flux, where the past government has been effectively decapitated, and the current power-players are vying for domination...In this state of being, a region is most likely to be taken over by those with the biggest, largest amount of equipment/arms, and/or the meanest demeanor (ie, the ability and willingness to react viciously to any challenges)...In that case, the most likely winner of the power struggle would be the one most likely to be fascistic.

Only any truly Facist government would have the clear sense to avoid a nation in a state of anarchy. Have you ever tried to catch a mouse? Go ahead and get some friends. It could still take a week to catch one. It's the same with humans in chaos. You could occupy the land, but it wouldn't be safe. Also, the peoples have become decentralized and paranoid. A facist army isn't going to be able to just waltz right in like people think. The hit and runs, the theft of supplies, the oppotunistic behavior. All of those things are going to make that invasion a large waste of time and money, not to mention that chaos is like an air born pathogen. You military would start suffering break downs in communication and moral. They would get to the point where they shoot anything that moves.

As for good or evil, those terms are so damned arbitrary. A Facist state is not either inherantly. Yes, if you get a dictator, then they are abitualy corrupted by their power, it does not mean it will always be as such. You might get a person who wants order, peace, and equality, and will happy force these ideal upon the people. Just because people don't like something you force on them doesn't make you evil. Children hate veggies and schoolwork and a good parent will make them partake of both. A sane government know there is balance and tries to maintain it. A governemnt that is "off it's trolly" tries to fix the situation with extremes, but that doesn't make them evil. Just extremist. It's not evil to take away the peoples right to religious expression or to force them to follow one god. It is evil to skin random people on tuesdays and call it a national sport.

Both of these things are fairly equal. One way or another they are killing you, either physically or mentally. So just think about what kind of adventure (or complete lack there of) you prefer.

Anarchy promises freedom.

And if you are not willing to die for Freedom, you don't deserve it in the first place.
Freedom is only good for the living and anarchy promises more death than it does freedom.

Frankly, I don't care what you think I deserve or what you think I don't deserve. I see this as a question between a horrid death and a horrid life, and given that both are bad I would think that life is less bad than death.

I'll go with Fascism, both suck but hopefully after fascism gets overthrown you'll be left with a resemblance of a nation.....Anarchy just gives you smoldering ruins.
Uhm...
http://www.fsz.uni-hannover.de/Sprachbereiche/Franzoesisch/images/HANVAN/CENTREVILLE-BERLIN-1945.gif

Uhm...
http://www.fsz.uni-hannover.de/Sprachbereiche/Franzoesisch/images/HANVAN/CENTREVILLE-BERLIN-1945.gif

I think he was talking about the government being overthrown without the rest of the world bombing the heck out of it.

I think we should just consider this on a national level.

Only any truly Facist government would have the clear sense to avoid a nation in a state of anarchy. Have you ever tried to catch a mouse? Go ahead and get some friends. It could still take a week to catch one. It's the same with humans in chaos. You could occupy the land, but it wouldn't be safe. Also, the peoples have become decentralized and paranoid. A facist army isn't going to be able to just waltz right in like people think. The hit and runs, the theft of supplies, the oppotunistic behavior. All of those things are going to make that invasion a large waste of time and money, not to mention that chaos is like an air born pathogen. You military would start suffering break downs in communication and moral. They would get to the point where they shoot anything that moves.

I was'nt speaking of an invading Outsider, I was speaking of fascistic in-nation (ie, local) elements which then vie for power with the other in-nation power groups. The fascistics in-nation are likely to have some amount of non-combatant support, depending on specific ideology, as well as a trendency to be well-armed and willing to kill and torture to solidify their rule through fear.

I know what he meant, but the way he phrased it... "resemblance of a nation" simply sounded... wrong. Given the damage done to overthrow a fascist government here. ;)

To play the Devil's Advocate, in that I actually agree with you, isnt debate and reason as applied to government, an ideology of western culture? It was first practiced by the Greeks and eventually spread out? Certainly tribes in Africa and even some Asian cultures sustain their culture without much debate.

maybe. the thing is that the fascists took strong man rule and pushed it well past it's breaking point. they don't even leave themselves bound to tradition or anything else that might offer hope of keeping the whole project from blowing up on them.

I call for an Oreocracy.

Well, since this scenario quite closely follows what some believe about Iraq, i would like to bring something to all of your attentions. Voting for anarchy is like voting for the iraq invasion b/c it took away facism and left semi-anarchy. Voting for facism is like voting for saddam to stay in power. Wait, according to the poll, more people are for the iraq war than those against it. Well it looks like that if you take your political bias out of it, you really do support the iraq war.

:confused:

Well, since this scenario quite closely follows what some believe about Iraq, i would like to bring something to all of your attentions. Voting for anarchy is like voting for the iraq invasion b/c it took away facism and left semi-anarchy. Voting for facism is like voting for saddam to stay in power. Wait, according to the poll, more people are for the iraq war than those against it. Well it looks like that if you take your political bias out of it, you really do support the iraq war.

wow, that's not even wrong

Well, since this scenario quite closely follows what some believe about Iraq, i would like to bring something to all of your attentions. Voting for anarchy is like voting for the iraq invasion b/c it took away facism and left semi-anarchy. Voting for facism is like voting for saddam to stay in power. Wait, according to the poll, more people are for the iraq war than those against it. Well it looks like that if you take your political bias out of it, you really do support the iraq war.

The poll is about forms of goverment (or lack thereof). It does not take in account the thousands of American lives lost. It does not take in account the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost. It does not take in account the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars spent. It does not take in account the hatred for America that it is inciting.

Anything else?

The poll is about forms of goverment (or lack thereof). It does not take in account the thousands of American lives lost. It does not take in account the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost. It does not take in account the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars spent. It does not take in account the hatred for America that it is inciting.

Anything else?

Costs aside, you agree w/ the thinking behind liberating the iraqis. The main reason for going to war and staying at war.

Freedom is only good for the living and anarchy promises more death than it does freedom.

no it doesn't

Costs aside, you agree w/ the thinking behind liberating the iraqis. The main reason for going to war and staying at war.

I'm sorry but all thats twisted logic.

no it doesn't

Actually, it does.

Anarchy means conflict. Conflict means death.

With a fascistic-style government, there's no guarantee they're going to turn into "ZOMGNAZIS!111", even though that has happened, and it provides stability (in most cases).

Anarchy means conflict.

no it doesn't (http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/anarchismEncyBrit.htm)

With a fascistic-style government, there's no guarantee they're going to turn into "ZOMGNAZIS!111", even though that has happened, and it provides stability (in most cases).

fascism, by its very nature, cannot provide stability. never has, never will.

I'd go with Anarchy. After the ensuing embarrassment most people would reorganize into something slightly more intelligent.

Anarchy any day there is a difference between anarchy and chaos. There can still be order in anarchy if people agree to live in societys voluntarily and abide by the rules. There would still be in affect governments but much smaller more community based instead of the massive bueracratic mess we have now. The American (so called wild) west was peaceful for the most part (unless you were a Native).

Your security is dependent on your ability to form social networks.
Fergi America;11675042']I'll take the fascism.
where your security doesn't exist?
Where my security doesn't depend on "forming social networks." Humans are emotional, nonsensical beasts and I'm not good at interacting with the majority of them.
In an anarchy I'd probably be dead in a week, just because I couldn't get them to "like" me enough.

So I'd definitely take the Fascism, where the rules are clearer (to me, anyway) and not so dependent on the vagaries of human social interaction. And where when I call the police, there ARE police, and they actually come.

Social-types may think that's "sad" but caring about that wouldn't keep me alive...

Long live anarchy!

Absolute fascism is the antithesis of freedom; I would rather have almost any system but it.

+1

i know bush wants to be king...but it will never happen..neither will king clintoon...the beauty of the system..for now.

and sooner then later i hope...everyone will wake up and realise neither party serves us...and lest we forget,they are the public servants..not princes/princesses and kings ruling their fiefdoms,as much as they like to think in their bloated scotch induced delusions.

i will say they are doing a damn fine job of turning us into sheep...so i am all for anarchy in that case.
but for now..i take orio's

no it doesn't (http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/anarchismEncyBrit.htm)
I was talking about actual anarchy, not the theoretical Anarchy that is the pipe-dream of so many pie-in-the-sky Socialists...Human nature does'nt work that way, especially with the large populations we have these days...Back in the nomad/village days, it was possible, but not today.

fascism, by its very nature, cannot provide stability. never has, never will.

Nazi Germany seemed pretty stable, domestically, until we bombed it back into the stone age...Guess that's what happens when you bite off more than you can chew.

Fergi America;11678809']Where my security doesn't depend on "forming social networks." Humans are emotional, nonsensical beasts and I'm not good at interacting with the majority of them.

and under fascism, which glorifies irrationalism and violence for its own sake and encourages mass participation in it all, you are less concerned about this?! me thinks you're slightly confused.

Fergi America;11678809']In an anarchy I'd probably be dead in a week, just because I couldn't get them to "like" me enough.

you don't get killed for not being liked in anarchy

I was talking about actual anarchy

so am i. do you propose that the anarchy called of by those few that took up propaganda of the deed (where the bomb throwing image comes from) was different than mine? cause that sort of thing is easily checked.

Nazi Germany seemed pretty stable, domestically

really?!

Freedom is more important than life.

so am i. do you propose that the anarchy called of by those few that took up propaganda of the deed (where the bomb throwing image comes from) was different than mine? cause that sort of thing is easily checked.


Could you please improve your grammar and punctuation, so I can understand what the fuck you're actually saying?

Could you please improve your grammar and punctuation, so I can understand what the fuck you're actually saying?

of => for

better?

of => for

better?

Fine, I understand it now, but propaganda has nothing to do with the truth. Anarchy, in the Socialist sense, is'nt Anarchy in the real-world sense...If you want to throw bombs and take over the state, and order that people spread out into happy, self-sustaining little Communes with loose rules to guide them, admit it, but don't tell me that you actually support a "Stateless, leaderless society", because that's just intellectually dishonest.

Fine, I understand it now, but propaganda has nothing to do with the truth.

oh! sorry, i forget that people in general don't just know the term "propaganda of the deed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

Fine, I understand it now, but propaganda has nothing to do with the truth. Anarchy, in the Socialist sense, is'nt Anarchy in the real-world sense...If you want to throw bombs and take over the state, and order that people spread out into happy, self-sustaining little Communes with loose rules to guide them, admit it, but don't tell me that you actually support a "Stateless, leaderless society", because that's just intellectually dishonest.

Why are you presuming the anarchy would be socialist? I mean it could be, certainly, but its not a given. As a matter of fact...I do support a stateless, leaderless society. Simply, you are looking at this through very restricted lenses. most people do not need a leader, the greater and greater need for a state is based upon a dependency that having a state at all produces.

No, fascism proper is where the government is more imortant than the people.

Which is why you can not have a moral government that is also Fascist.

Anarchy breeds government.


And in turn govenment breeds anarchy.

really?!

Sure, as long as you weren't Jewish, foreign, gay, easily confused for any of those qualities, or concerned with any aspect of the political climate, Nazi Germany was extremely stable, domestically. At least until they started wars.

Anarchy is only freedom for the strong to posess the weak.

Sure, as long as you weren't Jewish, foreign, gay, easily confused for any of those qualities, or concerned with any aspect of the political climate, Nazi Germany was extremely stable, domestically.

don't forget 'just plain looked funny' or 'somehow offended the local fascist goons'. it's a weird sort of stability, at best. not to mention localized and fleeting. very fleeting.

At least until they started wars.

which was essentially the entire point of the movement in the first place

Anarchy is only freedom for the strong to posess the weak.
That's the strong's job.

Agnew was right. I do not, however, think Americans should be allowed to make that choice.