Cooper42 wrote:I know Engels' work well, and whilst superficially descriptive, it was, certainly in later writings, not without an agenda. And whilst yourself and I may be aware of communism in a more abstract sense, who else here considers it anything but a reference to a political and social ideal?
I never said that Engels did not have an agenda. Both Engles and Marx had very clear agendas. But much of their work was descriptive. Have you read Zinn's
A People's History of the United States (e.g. ISBN: 1583226281)? Would you say that the book is descriptive? Would you say that it has an agenda? Are the two really exclusive of eachother? I don't think that description is exclusive of an agenda. Everyone has an agenda, even if they are attempting to describe something.
Cooper42 wrote:Anarchism doesn't mean just apolitical, or anti-governmental. For most (popular, but not necessarily correct) imaginings, it means 'without order' or even chaos. I certainly don't think that applies.
That is a dictionary description of anarchy, and only one of many. In the modern political arena, what does anarchy mean? When used to describe a society, it generally means "without an organized government." That is certainly the meaning that self-described anarchists have in mind (including both Communists on one end of the political spectrum, and Libertarians on the other end). Small societies, like many of those found in the New World at the time of contact, certainly met that definition.
Basically, it seems to come down to this: you seem to think that if I describe people as communists, I am also implying that these people have the same political ideals of Marxists, or Leninists, or Maoists (all forms of Communism with a capital "C", all rather different). You argue that, because American Indians had never heard of Marx, they could not have those political ideals. In contrast, I am stating that Marx described a form of political organization, and that term transcends the specific political goals that he had.
Cooper42 wrote:My point was, who thinks of communism and anarchy (capitalised or no) as anything but political (or apolitical) ideals, other than those who may have studied the subject? For most people, such a description is misleading.
What you are saying here, basically, is that the vast majority of people see communism and anarchism as having certain political ideals associated with them, and that, because of the stigma associated with them, people who are differently (I might even say "better") educated should shy away from those terms? I would prefer use the terms, and, if objected to, explain exactly how I am using the term, and what the term means to the vast majority of social scientists that use it. In that manner, perhaps, the political and social stigma of the terms can be reduced, and we can actually have logical and calm debates about the relative merits of the systems.
Cooper42 wrote:Yes, it's a possible description, not entirely unaccurate, but it's certainly very misleading.
In fact, it is almost entirely accurate. Honestly, I know exactly how I am using the terms, and I know about the societies that I am describing with those terms. If you do not, I am more than happy to explain.
Cooper42 wrote:And as an excuse to whip-out images of the most worthless piece of paper ever written upon, it's as good as any...
You are really going to have to clarify this comment...
xander