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.

[Redleg]

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.

The optim mix is to allow the people to decide which economic/political system works best for them. There is a reason why countries with a democratic capitalistic socialistic mix of government are currently more successful then other models. The Chinese with their mix of capitalist/marxism could also be on the right tract, but the lack of personal freedom forces me to discount that as a model that I wish to live under.

As you probably noticed I am not a free market captialist. But believe in the what some have called social-capitalist economic model. The mix of the two to be decided by the people in a democracy form of government.

[Aenlic]

The optim mix is to allow the people to decide which economic/political system works best for them. There is a reason why countries with a democratic capitalistic socialistic mix of government are currently more successful then other models. The Chinese with their mix of capitalist/marxism could also be on the right tract, but the lack of personal freedom forces me to discount that as a model that I wish to live under.

As you probably noticed I am not a free market captialist. But believe in the what some have called social-capitalist economic model. The mix of the two to be decided by the people in a democracy form of government.

Agreed for the most part. In the end for me, maximizing democracy is the most important. The economic system tends to take care of itself when the people are able vote for the own self-interests and attain an education beyond the bare-minimum. I have problems with capitalism; but mostly from the standpoint of being extremely suspicious of corporate capitalism. In and of itself, capitalism can be positive. It's just when institutionalized greed, in the form of corporations which are inherently devoid of ethical considerations and responsibilities to society, gets in the mix that I find capitalism to be the most unpalatable.

China is an interesting subject, as well. It's possible that the huge economic drive in China might somehow overcome the totalitarian political situation; but I'm not particular hopeful in that regard. I think it'll take at least one new generation coming into power there for the old guard and the old Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist "dictatorship of the proletariat" mindset to finally fade away. We'll see.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Aenlic, do you have a recommended reading list for your philosophy? I know Bakunin, but would appreciate some other authors on the subject. It seems to me to be worth understanding more fully.

[Aenlic]

Aenlic, do you have a recommended reading list for your philosophy? I know Bakunin, but would appreciate some other authors on the subject. It seems to me to be worth understanding more fully.

There's a complete bibliography at the end of the Anarchist FAQ here. By complete, I mean really excessively complete. Mind-numbingly, incredibly complete.

My favorite author in the subject would have to be Murray Bookchin. His The Ecology of Freedom: the emergence and dissolution of hierachy is a great discussion of many of the more important themes in anarchist theory, particularly social ecology. Anything else by him would do as well; but the above is certainly his best.

Anything by Noam Chomsky in the political and economic vein.

I'm also fond of a book written by one of the anarchist communists who opposed Lenin's Marxist takeover of the Russian Revolution. Peter Kropotkin was born a privileged member of the boyar class. Prince Kropotkin even entered the Corps of Pages in St. Petersburg and served as a page to Czar Alexander II. But he became exposed to more radical thought when visiting Switzerland in the 1870's and eventually ended up connected to the very radical Jura federation. He returned to Russia and became involved with the Circle of Tchaikovsky. His radical ideas got him arrested in 1873 but he escaped and fled to England. He then returned to Switzerland, but was expelled by the Swiss government when Alexander II was assassinated because he was known to have affiliations with the Narodnaya Volya group which carried out the assassination. He spent time in England and France, was arrested in France too for his radical views. He eventually returned to Russia after the February revolution and served as an advisor to Kerensky. He turned his back on government and the revolution altogether when the Bolsheviks took control, even having been credited with saying "This buries the revolution."

Sorry for the rather long synopsis; but I really admire this guy. His best book by far is The Conquest of Bread.

And, of course, George Orwell's tribute to the anarcho-communists of Barcelona in 1936-1939 in Homage to Catalonia.

It's nice to see an interest. One doesn't have to agree with differing opinions; but it certainly is nice to see those who seek to at least learn something more of them than can be had in the usual thin-veneer of standard education. Most people have no idea how widespread the opposition to Marx was among communists in Europe in the late 19th century, with the Jura federation and the International Workers Association and many more who were expelled from the First Communist International at the Hague Congress in 1872 for opposing Marx's totalitarian and statist views. Cheers!

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank you for the recommendations, Aenlic. That should fill my reading list nicely.