reply to post by TheCoffinman
Sorry mate. Anarchy = no Government. If there is a Government or any form of Social construct is another form of Government. You cannot even put
"Anarchy" into the name ... as it's greek.. it means "No Government" .. literally.
Communism as a theory:
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole
or to the state.
The idea being centralized control over everything, but no government to control it.. essentially, that every thing is everyone's and that's it..
however within this system demands a required structure to control the "fairness doctrine" .. that no one group gets more than any other. This is
why all Communisms are destined for it's evil sister: Socialism. Without some form of power to dictate who gets what, when they get it, how they
get it etc, it's simply pure anarchy .. in which everything really does belong to anyone, as anyone can take it. Hence I can bop you over the head
and steal your woman and food. There's no centralized power to dictate punishment or enforcement.
Now the typical argument: An organized defense force of the community it's self governs the community and protects it's ideas and property. But
that's called a Stratocracy, not Anarchy.
Some would say tiny individual communities would regulate and govern themselves without centralized or "nationalized" power... this is Tribalism.
All it comes down to is people controlling Government, not Government controlling people, but in no uncertain terms the complete absence of Government
(Anarchy) is entirely impossible.. even if it could be achieved it would be impossible to hold onto, whether that be internal corruption or external
desecration. Imagine, please, that the USA was not a Democracy, in fact, it had no Government at all. We see the massive corruption, the Plutocracy
that controls through consolidation .. now imagine there was no Government.. would these people instantly become enlightened and end their thievish
ways? No.. the doors would be wide open, and it wouldn't be called corruption, it would be called a social norm.. as there is no rules regulating it
and there is no structure to define it.
All Anarchist are Libertarians.. this is why there is so much confusion regarding the terminology.. every last one of them. They want to be left
alone, they want the smallest form of government humanly possible, they want to live their lives, keep their work and fruits of their labor and don't
want to have to fear internal persecution from their own government.
All Libertarians are not Anarchist.. as most Libertarians would see the necessary evil of Government, and the impossibilities of Anarchy.
NO Libertarian/anarchist is a Communist. That is a political ideological fallacy that makes no sense. Where Anarchy and Libertarianism represent the
ultimate forms of self assurance, self governing, self responsibility etc.. Communism represents the ultimate consolidation and control of power by a
despotism in a centralized position .. they who give from the few and disperse to the many. It is the ideological polar opposite of Anarchy. And
while it would be nice to say our communities can exist without Government in a Anarchy/Libertarian utopia, such a tribalism society still have a
Government, and micro Governments are more often more intrusive to personal lives than macro governments.
I know there are two forms of Communism -- Political Communism which is a Despot form of Government, and an Ideological form of Communism, but the
idea is impossible without government because it demands a state of pure enlightenment over the entire population.
A more correct term to describe both yours and the other twos ideas would be "Non-Federalist Neo-Socialist"
Or for the idea of Anarchy Communism: Ochlocracy
[edit on 5/5/2010 by Rockpuck]