mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I saw that someone mentioned anarchy in the footy forum. As luck would have it, I've only just finished reading a book about Spanish anarchy in the 1930s.
Just my understanding, but anarchy always refers to left wing politics. The right wing equivalent (small government and little interference) is called libertarianism.
There may be more types of anarchy - all I know about is the Spanish experiment. It started in agricultural areas with groups of peasants expropriating land but became quite widespread via the CNT union. They organised themselves with collectives which all had voted governing bodies. Industry and factories joined in and collectives were set up by trade: arms manufacture; hairdressing; food distribution etc. People think that anarchy means no governing but they had lots of elected forums in a pyramid; the key was that they took assets and then tried (unsuccessfully) to get rid of all money by trading between communes using barter. No private ownership was permitted and they kicked people out who, for example, didn't spend all their coupons each week - as a way to ensure that nobody could save and hence acquire capital.
They were strongly opposed by both the Socialist and the Communist parties - which I thought was odd, as my understanding of communism as per Marx is that it is effectively anarchy: Socialism is stage 1 when the government owns everything and later government is no longer needed and it becomes communism. They were eventually defeated when Franco won the civil war.
I have a book on the Paris Commune which I will read soon. I'm also going to read writings from anarchist theoreticians such as Kropotkin.
Just my understanding, but anarchy always refers to left wing politics. The right wing equivalent (small government and little interference) is called libertarianism.
There may be more types of anarchy - all I know about is the Spanish experiment. It started in agricultural areas with groups of peasants expropriating land but became quite widespread via the CNT union. They organised themselves with collectives which all had voted governing bodies. Industry and factories joined in and collectives were set up by trade: arms manufacture; hairdressing; food distribution etc. People think that anarchy means no governing but they had lots of elected forums in a pyramid; the key was that they took assets and then tried (unsuccessfully) to get rid of all money by trading between communes using barter. No private ownership was permitted and they kicked people out who, for example, didn't spend all their coupons each week - as a way to ensure that nobody could save and hence acquire capital.
They were strongly opposed by both the Socialist and the Communist parties - which I thought was odd, as my understanding of communism as per Marx is that it is effectively anarchy: Socialism is stage 1 when the government owns everything and later government is no longer needed and it becomes communism. They were eventually defeated when Franco won the civil war.
I have a book on the Paris Commune which I will read soon. I'm also going to read writings from anarchist theoreticians such as Kropotkin.
Last edited:
