I'm putting this here because the topic is basically about philosophy (if someone wants to move it somewhere else, feel free).
Although he is apparently suspended for 1 week, GHook93 prompted me to start a thread on whether or not Somalia is a good representation of Anarchic principles in action. I argue that it isn't.
GHook presented the following link and quote:
Anarchy in Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote:
Somalia, from 1991-2006, is cited by some as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system. From the fall of Siad Barre's government in January of 1991 until the capture of Mogadishu by the Islamic Courts Union in June of 2006, Somalia had no significant centralized government, with large areas of the country ruled by such unrecognized mini-states as Somaliland, Puntland, and Southwestern Somalia.
The remaining areas, including the capital Mogadishu, were divided into smaller territories ruled by competing warlords. In many areas there were and still are no formal regulations or licensing requirements for businesses and individuals.
|
While I can understand the uninitiated believing this is/was anarchism in action, it's important to consider basic definitions of anarchism.
The very word "anarchism" means without -archy, or without hierarchy. Or, more generally, it could be seen as tendencies away from hierarchy, coercion and exploitation. This is not to say there is a universal definition, or that anarchists are never hypocritical, but that this definition doesn't fit well with Somalia.
First of all, we should consider how the very nature of an "Islamic Courts Union" is hardly anarchic. If the organization is elitist, exclusive, hierarchical and systematically exploitative (capitalistic), then it has features of a state. On top of this, most anarchists oppose religion (though there are religious anarchists). When you then consider how different Somali territories are "ruled" by competing warlords, this also defies the basic principles of anarchism, which stand quite against territorialism, rulership, competition and warlordism.
The only way we can talk about anarchism in Somalia is if we discuss anarchists who are actually there, because the situation typically described doesn't cut it.
Also, consider how a state actually now exists in Somalia, as made quite clear by recent events:
Quote:
ABC News: U.S. Warship Bombards Somalia Militants
A U.S. warship pounded somalia's remote coastal northeast, targeting Islamic militants hours after a gunbattle with Somali government forces that left eight insurgents dead, officials said Saturday. The fighting late Friday, which the provincial government said included an American militant, appeared to mark the opening of a new front against Islamic militants in Puntland, a semiautonomous region that has remained relatively peaceful through somalia's anarchy.
|
When the choice seems to be between US terrorism, Islamic militants and Somali government forces, where is the anarchism?
Here is a decent take on events there:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/llr/sp000381.txt
It's a bit old, but clearly still relevant.
Grandpa h.