Anarcho-Capitalism or Totalitarian Communism? Question

David and the crew answer your questions...ask yours today!

24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP

--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj

--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

[TravisCollierMath]

No. Communism is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. Totalitarian communism has the possibility to be an oxymoron, since a communist society doesn't even have a state. I think they're talking about state socialism, which is certainly totalitarian. Plus, most anarchists are communists, and they're also definitely anti-state. Anarcho-Capitalism is also an oxymoron, because capitalism requires a state in order to protect the ownership of capital and an anarchic society is stateless anyway. They each seem to me nonsensical.

[blackmichael]

Bakunin said: "liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". 

In other words, these two ideas are equally bad.

But there is a third option, and that is anarchism, or libertarian socialism. 

[sander]

Anarchism is inherently anti capitalist.

Actual communism means there is no state (not that this is what most people mean when they say communism)

Both anarcho-capitalism and totalitarian communism are oxymorons

A lot of anarchists are communists. Anarchism is a way to communism (or some other form of non capitalist society). Anarchists are basically non statists socialists, where 'regular' socialists see the state as a means to an end. In socialist ideals the state would eventually go away (obviously this doesn't happen, as history shows. People in power never just give up their power).

[Shigawire]

For Anarcho-Capitalism, look at Somalia and it's warlords.
For totalitarian communism, we have North Korea.
I won't select either.

[yoyoutube]

Anarcho-Capitalism = Somalia
Totalitarian Communism = North Korean

Which one is the lesser of 2 evils?

[devourerofbabies]

In the end, there isn't much difference between the two.

[philosophicalreason]

I forgot who said it but as the old saying goes, the best type of control is when people know they are being controlled, but don't mind.

[Jyagos]

At least in Communism, we'd have universal healthcare.

[squarewheel]

What does he mean differently? Even democracy is who has the most green paper. That's our world now.

[PixelDansIronFist]

How 'bout we take the liberating freedom part from both and leave the crappy parts like capitalism and totalitarianism behind, I know crazy idea right? Yes such an amazing arrangement can and did exist, it's called anarcho-socialism!
TOTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL IS POSSIBLE, CUZ EQUALITY=FREEDOM!!!
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that Dave & Co.

[niriop]

In the words of Slavoj Zizek: "I want a third pill!"

[deborahsmith]

Both are extremes.
Extremes are rarely good for anything.
Both would be harmful to freedom.

[cannonballkid]

Anarcho-Capitalism aka anarchy with bosses 0_o

[kurtilein]

i think anarcho-capitalism and totalitarian communism would be almost equally bad.

anarcho syndicalism makes much more sense. the idea is that all people affected by a decision should be part of making that decision. it implies that you need different systems of representative democracy and direct democracy working on different levels. so a representative parliamentary democracy would be highly consistent with anarcho syndicalism, especially if its split up into a federal level, state level, and regional level, with city councils, and has elements of direct democracy on different levels. anarcho syndicalists dont like the system in the USA, because the elections are not representative, therefore dont even really qualify as "elections". apart from plain and simple representative democracy with checks and balances, i like anarcho syndicalism the most, it provides clear answers, but can still account for all the complexities you get in reality. also, the nations that do best and prosper are the ones where anarcho-syndicalists see the least problems.


take the EU for example: anarcho-syndicalists would be fine with that, as long as its legitimized by representative democracy, and only deals with issues that really affect all of the EU. so the biggest problem they see with the EU is that it often overreaches into natuional/regional issues, and that the EU comission is not legitimate, and much too powerful. but the EU parliament, which is elected by all EU citizen in a representative system, would be much more agreeable for anarcho-syndicalists.

[TheRojo]

Totalitarian communism is merely the flipside of totalitarian capitalism; where public ownership is abolished and even infrastructures are privatised. As such, movement is more restricted under totalitarian capitalism than totalitarian communism, because in communism's case, the roads, which belong to everyone, in theory, cannot toll for passage.

[FromHellDesigns]

Do you want to live in a dictatorship or a plutocracy? 

[justinsane]

Hierarchy is intrinsic to nature including human nature. Thinking that all hierarchy can be eliminated or should be is nothing short of sociopolitical infantalism.

Why don't people on this channel admit to the truth that hierarchy will become "necessary" if you guys (or the likes of Chomsky) are ever at the top of it?

Anarchy means no political hierarchy - not no hierarchies at all.

Hierarchy exists in the size of planets orbiting the sun with Jupiter at the top. Hierarchy exists in a bee colony with the queen at the top. A sports team has a hierarchy, the church, the Boy Scouts... every system in nature (human or otherwise) is part of some kind or kinds of order and hierarchy. Why waste your time railing against reality?

A political arrangement though is an abstraction and every anarchist (regardless of stripe) must accept that there can and should be no *political* hierarchy. That doesn't extend to social, economic or cultural human domains. Like the Scarecrow of Oz, if you folks could only just get a clue...

[TrueMathSquare]

It is funny how many people thinks that they know what communism is, but they don't have a idea.

[mrhoneymaker]

I really don't see how they'd be different. In an AnCap society, the most successful businesses would grow to monopolize their particular industries, which would eventually lead to corporations forming a de-facto government to protect their interests. With no prior power structure to oppose them, there'd be nothing stopping them from growing into a totalitarian regime.

And once again, anarcho-socialism is swept under the rug. This guy should leave this particular debate to people like AnarchoPac.

[marty_comrade]

Communism is kind of like anarchism for civilized people.