Anarchocapitalism vs. Communism

Which of the two radical structures do you prefer, and why? Do you believe both are equally shit?

Discuss.

I don't know much about "anarchocapitalism". I do know Communism has killed like 100 million people and has never been successful.

Communism is literally impossible, so I prefer that one. High fantasy is one of my favorite genres.

Honestly, I'm not sure.

In theory anarchocapitalism. If you had asked a more naive, childish version of me 5 years ago I would have said communism.

In practice both are equally as shitty.

Better Anarchy then Tyranny.

Communism is the devil we know, Ancap is the one we don’t. But yeah, both suck.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Better Anarchy then Tyranny. [/B]

Both are stateless in theory; both are prone to tyranny. What makes you think one is worse than the other?

With Anarchy Everyone is free to Think and Act the way that they want. That is NOT the case under Tyranny.

I learned from p*ssies in Antifa communism is awesome cuz it worked in Star Trek. Can't we trust cowards in masks?

Gotta love the Star Trek argument.

I suppose the case for communism over anarchy is that there have been “communist” states that at least functioned, whereas there’s less precedent for a functioning anarchic society

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Gotta love the Star Trek argument.

Especially when Star Trek isn't really communist. You can clearly own property lol, but shh don't spoil it for them.

You can have possessions in communist states; owning a place does not mean it’s not communist

Originally posted by The Ellimist
You can have possessions in communist states; owning a place does not mean it’s not communist

So you can own buildings, buy land, etc.? Cuz I thought private property didn't exist under Communism.

There's no such thing as a communist state. There have been plenty of dictatorships of the proletariats, but communism requires the state to have already been abolished. And no, you can't own something in a communist state. Everything is given from those with ability to those with need. If you don't have a right to something, you can't own it. It's more like the government leasing it to you in return for labor, at least until said government is abolished.

Still curious about how communist states handle private property.

Originally posted by Surtur
So you can own buildings, buy land, etc.? Cuz I thought private property didn't exist under Communism.

Technically NO ONE actually OWNS LAND. You can OWN the Stuff on the Land but you can't OWN the actual land.

Communism's end goal is also anarchy but I can't see how you'd redistribute according to people's needs without some sort of bureaucracy, which goes right back into statism.

As for Elm's claim that "at least there's examples of communist states", the only examples are the Kropotkin sort of "anarcho-communism" — Makhnovia, Revolutionary Catalonia, etc. — and I guess it's worth noting that they all fell to external threats rather than internal collapse. On the other hand, if you're talking about examples of Marxist communism, there's none.