Would you prefer Nazism, Stalinism or anarchy?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

If I held a gun to your head, what would you choose?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Communism, I guess.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Communism, I guess.

I should specify that I mean Stalin-style communism(altered thread title accordingly)

[Free Palestine]

Anarchy.  The realistic kind of course.

[SvenssonRS]

Considering all three would end with humans doing ridiculously stupid, evil things, just shoot me.

[Mechaman]

Anarchy, that way I'd at least die in a shoot out with cannibalistic raiders instead of starving my ass off on a collective farm or having Germans shove lightning up my ass.

[Gustaf]

Depends a lot on how you formulate the scenario.

Anarchy would be my least preferred. A Stalinist society is worse in general than a Nazi society, but a Nazi society is obviously much worse for certain groups. If it is me and my Jewish grandmother doing the preferring I'm gonna have to opt out of the Nazi one.

Also, if we're literally speaking about a Nazi country with limited lebensraum that's obviously not going to be all that great either.

Of course, it's kind of silly to talk about Nazism or "a" Nazi society when we've only had one.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anarchy is preferable imo, when compared to the two other options.

[Roemerista]

Just shoot me!

Communism is quite possibly the must deplorable state for the human condition, and Nazism is perhaps the worst state of the human spirit. Anarchy? Well a world without law or order is a place I would like to never see. Just shoot me.

[Marokai Backbeat]

MQuinn, I was fully expecting you to buy into the rosy vision of Anarchy like so many others on this site, considering how that option is prevailing so much here, so, thank you for completely defying my expectations of you.

[Roemerista]

MQuinn, I was fully expecting you to buy into the rosy vision of Anarchy like so many others on this site, considering how that option is prevailing so much here, so, thank you for completely defying my expectations of you.

I believe the state has the potential to do great works, and anarchy the potential for nothing but, for a lack of a better word, evil. If I could not choose death, I do not know if I would choose communism over anarchy however, for humans are political animals and true anarchy could not feasibly last long, as we crave predictability and patterns. But perpetual anarchy? Communism might even edge out, that is quite a tough call for me. Since my entire "philosophical" view of history and progress, is that conflict and contest lead us upward. And a one party rule, does not leave room for this dynamic, nor does the economic system allow for one to enjoy the fruits of our labor, but there is more to life than an economic system. So I suppose my pyscological needs would push me to want at least some order and choose communism. Sorry for my ramblings, it was just an interesting thought experiment to me.

[Mechaman]

MQuinn, I was fully expecting you to buy into the rosy vision of Anarchy like so many others on this site, considering how that option is prevailing so much here, so, thank you for completely defying my expectations of you.

In my defense it my choice has nothing to do with my political ideology but the fact that in Anarchy the potential for all out firefights between roving bands of raiders, barbarians, cannibals, former Post Office workers, and former Jayhawk fans is funner than a strongly controlled centralized state where I don't have access to Colt 45s, AK-47s, incendiary grenades, RPGs, lazer chainguns, and mini-nukes to waste motherf***ers.

Just saying.



Oh f*** yeah.

[Roemerista]

Oh f*** yeah.

After a very compelling presentation, I have changed my mind.

[Lief 🗽]

What kind of anarchy? The popular definition/Mad Max/Somalia style? Or the "anarchy" in Catalonia in the late 1930s? The former is obviously terrible, while the latter is probably my ideal form of government.

[tpfkaw]

The one that didn't cause the deaths of nearly 200 million people, combined, in the last century.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Anarchy (normal)

[The Mikado]

Kind of depends what the context is.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

[vomits] Probably anarchy.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Anarchy was the primary state of humanity, and yeah I think the Zapatista's have a few good ideas. Also, I wouldn't mind some Fallout 3 style anarchy, so long as we have the technology .

[Free Palestine]

PROTIP: Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean complete disorder and chaos.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     All three would be terrible. With that said, my gut tells me that anarchy would be the least objectionable of the three.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Anarchy because in the other two situations I would be liquidated quickly. Somalia style anarchy never lasts for long and there's normally plenty of semi-stable areas within the anarchic conditions. In fact Somalia's past anarchy is preferable to the heavy handed authoritarianism that preceded it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm with Mech on this. In Anarchy, you at least have a chance to form your own state, while in Nazism or Communism you first have to destroy the existing government, then create your own.

Also, the idea of roving around with various types of weaponry and relying on your instincts and smarts is appealing. Too bad I don't own a gun.

[Franzl]

     All three would be terrible. With that said, my gut tells me that anarchy would be the least objectionable of the three.

[Хahar 🤔]

What kind of anarchy? The popular definition/Mad Max/Somalia style? Or the "anarchy" in Catalonia in the late 1930s? The former is obviously terrible, while the latter is probably my ideal form of government.

Really the Second Spanish Republic was the truest workers' state that has ever been.