Quote:
Quote by: grandpa  I wasn't the one adding to the confusion. And again, the aims of anarchism and state communism are dramatically different. Yes, one can point out some basic similarities, but no sensible person would advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat and call his/her self an "anarchist." In a state communist system, anarchists would in all likelihood be murdered and branded as outlaws. In fact, that's something that has happened. Again, I'm not confused here.
Grandpa h. |
I never said that an anarchist (as conceptually imagined) would advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat. I said both Communism and Anarchism expect results based on the concept that people will behave themselves. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was an idea that evolved in "state" communism specifically because the "behaving" failed to materialize. I said that the ideals had similar expectations in the conceptual stage and that anarchism will fail for the same reason communism, as originally conceived, failed. BECAUSE the "behaving" will not happen. Both systems aim to mitigate the problems of "power" by "trusting" the people (or workers) to behave in ways that further their own, collective, interest. The similar aim is the aim of mitigating the abuse of power. The similar concept is that individuals can be trusted to see, and behave in accordance with, the "greater universal good". But individuals do not. People need state control because they do not behave. People are the problem in ANY system. The reason I back the concept of Constitutional Democracy is because it accepts the truth that government is necessary AND attempts to limit the ways in which people will muck up the works through the amassing of power. I do not say it perfectly solves the problems because I am not stupid enough to believe there is a perfect solution. I am pragmatic and expect only to find a solution that mitigates, as much as possible in the real world, the same problems of power and greed and selfishness that we all see and understand.