Hunters are 'serial killers'.

[Aenlic]

Here is the point. The political model is invalid, since it was not allowed to fully function. The stablity of the two intermix idealogical values were not tested. Combaring it to an unstable western form of government weakens the postion if more so.

That was not my point, nor did I state that. I would use the failure of Communism as an economic model on the national scale and the no valid anarchist-communism mix having been successful on the national level. I would give the Barcelona credit as a valid small scale attempt that did not fully prove or disprove the model because of outside pressures. I see anarchism and communism as two competing models that might or might not mix well on the governmental level.

Good thing I never claimed that it did.

The social-capitialistic model has been proven successful on a large scale, the anarchist-communist model has not been proven successful on a large scale, and the success of the Barcelona model is somewhat questionable considering the outside pressure applied that allowed it to maintain cohesion for the short term, and the collaspe due to the outside source means we can not determine if it would of eventually been successful or not.

This is the unkownn quality of the model. It was doomed to failure because of the political pressures of the time, and the direct military pressure applied by the conflict in which it developed in. It seems you are attempting an arguement that I did not state. I clearly stated this sentence.
The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.

If the pests ruined each of my attempts at farming with a new technique of dry land farming - I would have still failed in using the farming method that I was attempting now wouln't I, because I was not successful in the attempt.

I suppose part of the problem in this discussion is I don't understand where you are coming from in regards to anarchism and communism being two competing models. I don't get that. Anarchism is a political system. Communism is an economic system. The two aren't competing. There are anarcho-capitalists, there are parliamentary-communists, and so on. In Barcelona, the anarchists ran the city and surrounding countryside using communism as the economic model.

You still seem to be implying that anarcho-communism is not valid because all attempts at implementing it have "ended in failure" without recognizing that the failure in Barcelona had nothing to do with the implementation but was due to other factors. Thus my use of the farm analogy.

We do agree that it is an unproven model, at least in part. But that can't be stretched to claim that it must fail. The most that can be said, using real-world evidence as the only standard, is that anarcho-communism might or might not work and that when it was tried, that one time, it was overrun by outside forces. Whereas, democratic free market capitalism has been proven to be a failure in implementation time and again for several centuries , requiring large infusions of socialist theory in order to make it palatable and for it to function in the real world. So, my stance is that of the two, anarcho-communism has not been proven to be a failure while democratic capitalism has failed.

But again, I fully recognize that anarchism and communism are essentially utopian because they haven't been tried on a large scale or long term. Let's not get into an argument about Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism being communism, though. They bear more resemblance to a centrally-controlled capitalism than to communism. The argument against trying to mix a centralized totalitarian political system with communism got Mikhail Bakunin kicked out of the First Communist International by Marx. I side with Bakunin. For communism to work it must be deeply rooted in democratic ideals, especially individual freedoms and as weak a central government as possible - thus the mixture of communism with an anarchist political leaning.

I also feel that free market capitalism has been proven to be utopian and unrealistic since it has never been implemented without ending up strongly mixed with socialist theory. So, of the two, it seems to me to be more sensible to choose the system which hasn't been proven to be unviable in the modern world; and that would be anarchism and socialism/communism, which is otherwise known as anarcho-communism or anarcho-sydicalism or libertarian socialism, and so on.

While we wait for our utopian dreams to manifest, you and I can at least agree that in the meantime a middle ground seems to work best. Our only argument being how far along the scale from one end to the other to place the marker.