Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
Not an adequate model of effective government. Two committing political philisophies united under a common cause of survival. With the outside pressure being applied against both groups the cohesion initially could be stated to come from the common cause of both groups. The pressure being applied by both groups probably shortern the time before betrayal between the two groups running Barcelona would of eventually come about. That anarchists achieved a foothold into government is noted, but as an effective government the time and situation does not provide enough evidence.
I'm not sure what to make of this. The anarchists and the communists were the same group. Anarchism dealt with the political structure and communism with the economic structure. They weren't two separate competing groups within Barcelona. They acheived a more stable government than Italy managed for almost 50 years after WWII.

No such model exists in the current modern world, nor would it survive for long if one was able to come about. The people will never stand for a government that does not at least attempt to look at for the interests of the people. A classic examble that the Republicians should have at least learned given the recent election cycle.
And yet, free market capitalism is the reason given for why anarchist socialism must fail. So if free market capitalism doens't exist, then the argument against anarcho-socialism is inherently without merit.

The best models of mixs of governmental types can be found in the West. A mix of capitialism and socialism. The optimum (SP) mix for each country is an ongoing legislative process in most countries that use this model.
Indeed. Which is why anarchism does not preclude individual entrepreneurship. As is made quite clear in that Anarchism link I posted.

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.
Since it existed as a living government system for 3 years in practice in the modern world, and as you've admitted, a purely capitalist-run government and economy can't exist in the modern world. That begs the question. Which is more viable?

And as for attempts at implementing the model ending in failure, what caused the failure? Was it the system or was it something outside local control, such as a massive civil war with a well-funded and internationally-supported fascist army bearing down on one side and less well-funded but almost as large Stalinist army bearing down on the other side? Saying that anarchism failed in Barcelona therefore it is flawed is the equivalent of saying "the crops failed, therefore you're a bad farmer" when it could have been the weather or an infestation of pests.