Why Somalia is NOT Anarchy

[grandpa]

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

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:

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.

[MachineCode0110]

This shows why anarchy is impossible.


Even if you succeed in dismantling the state, a king of the hill battle for control of the area will inevitably ensue between other states or private entities.

Control is too embedded into our humanity.


We just can't leave an uncontrolled area alone for any length of time.

[Athena]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 This shows why anarchy is impossible. Even if you succeed in dismantling the state, a king of the hill battle for control of the area will inevitably ensue between other states or private entities. Control is too embedded into our humanity. We just can't leave an uncontrolled area alone for any length of time.

Nicely said. We are biologically programmed for this behavior. However, bonobo are more cooperative than chimpanzees. We aren't quite as top dog as we assumed before observations of bonobo.

It appears females tend more towards democratic relations, while males seem more prone to autocratic relations? Women as a whole have expressed greater loyality to the famil, while men, as a whole, have expressed greater loyality to the king or warlord or general.

Wherever there is a warlord, there are those who submit to the leadership of the warlord. However, this is anarchy because it is informal and based on rule by might, as opposed to formal and based on rule by law. Females are less likely to rule by might, because they are much likely to get away with this with males. They are more highly dependent on cooperation and agreements, and agreements become laws which organize civilizations. What the Samolians are doing can not become a civilization. Their order is rule by might-individual first, not rule by agreeement- conformity to social agreements.

Without formal laws, what can make males live together without phycially fighting for power? Samilia is an anarchy because it is without government constituted for the pretection of all.

[grandpa]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 This shows why anarchy is impossible. Even if you succeed in dismantling the state, a king of the hill battle for control of the area will inevitably ensue between other states or private entities.

This is a fascinating angle for critiquing anarchy. Basically, it entails that, because humans often "battle for control," they should keep doing so.
There are obvious pitfalls to this kind of logic, illustrated quite well by the two World Wars and their aftermaths.

Waging campaigns of mass murder is one thing states do exceptionally well, and it's rationalized along the same lines you just presented.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Athena Nicely said. We are biologically programmed for this behavior.

I think most of us are biologically programmed to be able to choose our behaviors based on information we've taken in.

As for warlords being anarchic, we can look things up.

warlord

noun
supreme military leader exercising civil power in a region...especially one accountable to nobody when the central government is weak

An anarchist is "opposed to all forms of rulership," including that of warlords.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

The issue, Grandpa, is not if we "should" continue in those modes of behavior. The issue is if we "will". If humans, finding themselves in unregulated circumstances, always revert to some form of regulation, is it not best to attempt to foster the form of regulation that is best able to achieve some sort of ballance between the collective good and individual rights? Anarchy does not hold in the long run. It can not be "fostered", by it's very definition. It can not be imposed. It can not be enforced, so it fails.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The issue, Grandpa, is not if we "should" continue in those modes of behavior. The issue is if we "will". If humans, finding themselves in unregulated circumstances, always revert to some form of regulation, is it not best to attempt to foster the form of regulation that is best able to achieve some sort of ballance between the collective good and individual rights?

Rights in this country are well defined, but the "collective good" argument is losing it's appeal because of all the things people want to lump into the collective good. ( So a big NO on that one. )

Quote by: lsbskins1 Anarchy does not hold in the long run. It can not be "fostered", by it's very definition. It can not be imposed. It can not be enforced, so it fails.

Heh, now that was well said.


You have managed to clearly illustrate why that system can not work in four short sentences.

[SoylentGreen]

lsbskins1 If humans, finding themselves in unregulated circumstances, always revert to some form of regulation, is it not best to attempt to foster the form of regulation that is best able to achieve some sort of ballance between the collective good and individual rights? Anarchy does not hold in the long run. It can not be "fostered", by it's very definition. It can not be imposed. It can not be enforced, so it fails

.

Anarchism is a regulated system .
One that does not use centralised government but decentralised government.
There is a big difference between the words anarchy and anarchism.
The first implies no government and the second self government.
What definition of anarchism are you using.?
Also your last statement which I put in bold implies that government only works if the people are foced against there will to obey. Is this the only way you see society working?

Somalia is not anarchism it is anarchy.
A better example would be the spanish preWWII anrchist states such as the Anarchosyndicalist Ideology of Barcelona

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The issue, Grandpa, is not if we "should" continue in those modes of behavior. The issue is if we "will".

I think behavior is accessible, which means that in most cases it can be changed.


My interest is in changing attitudes in order to affect behavior.
If I can do that, even to a small extent, it's better than nothing.

Quote by: lsbskins1 If humans, finding themselves in unregulated circumstances, always revert to some form of regulation, is it not best to attempt to foster the form of regulation that is best able to achieve some sort of ballance between the collective good and individual rights?

Such control is generally mythic. I don't say that simply out of cynicism, but because I know something about history.

I should say that anarchism doesn't necessarily entail throwing out every rule and standard. We're not talking about any type of regulation here, but elitist, hierarchical regulation versus participatory decision-making.

If organizations tend to be hierarchical, the critical thinker should consider why. The most obvious conclusion is how hierarchy benefits those at the top.
If it's found that some benefit much more than others, and the hierarchy is emboldened to the point where accountability is a joke, then "collective good" simply does not exist as a true goal and is merely coincidental.

Individual rights (however they are defined) are then easily undermined, as people end up working for unaccountable collectives where they just carry out orders.

So balance cannot be easily found in the creation and maintenance of a class of "regulators." History reveals that again and again, in case you haven't noticed.

I don't think authority as we know it is inherent. It's mostly learned bahavior, and it can be unlearned.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Anarchy does not hold in the long run. It can not be "fostered", by it's very definition. It can not be imposed. It can not be enforced, so it fails.

Here you imply that a successful endeavor must be imposed, which is not true.
People can apply reason instead of force. In fact, that's what they will will have to do if they want to stop the destructive tendencies they've been trained to enact.

This requires more knowledge, not more of the ignorance that comes with simply carrying out orders. It requires a more intellectual culture, as well.

One of the main arguments presented against anarchism is that people are too ignorant to make it work. But, if you look closely, that's a criticism of the status quo more than anything else. Why are many people ignorant? Well, they are encouraged to be. If they are abysmally ignorant, elites (whether we mean Presidents, CEOS and investors or Islamic warlords) have every excuse to stay where they are.

The solution lies in the words of Isaac Asimov:
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."

In other words, we don't solve all of our problems by simply looking the other way, or by carrying out orders, bombing people, jailing them, evicting them, and applauding our own virtues and the impossibility of a more humane and egalitarian society.

The belief that business as usual succeeds is why anarchist principles fail. People are too afraid to realize we are on the path to destruction, so they rationalize what is happening because it's a common theme in history. However, it makes more sense to question that which is common.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: SoylentGreen . Anarchism is a regulated system . One that does not use centralised government but decentralised government. There is a big difference between the words anarchy and anarchism. The first implies no government and the second self government. What definition of anarchism are you using.? Also your last statement which I put in bold implies that government only works if the people are foced against there will to obey. Is this the only way you see society working? Somalia is not anarchism it is anarchy. A better example would be the spanish preWWII anrchist states such as the Anarchosyndicalist Ideology of Barcelona

But it is all the same in the end. It (anarchism) can not force a centralized government to not dominate it, so it fails. It's very definition limits it's ability to stand. How's that whole thing working in Spain today?

Just because in the imagined world of perfect (or just positive) human behavior, one must admit that it would be great if we all limited our own behavior and respected others, that does not mean that is a viable alternative. I imagine it would be better if I could fly to work under my own power rather than use a car and increase global warming. Problem is, I can't. So, even if ,in theory, it would be better, it is a moot point. So, if you are asking me if I belive that a substantial portion of humans will not self regulate, and as a result of this, we need government - the answer would be YES!

[SoylentGreen]

lsbskins1 But it is all the same in the end. It (anarchism) can not force a centralized government to not dominate it, so it fails. It's very definition limits it's ability to stand. How's that whole thing working in Spain today?

I agree force is not the answer.
Nor do I advocate anarchism for todays world. Society evolves im the darwinian sense, we have gone from primitive communism to feudal to industrial and are now entering capatilist styles of society
Somewher further down the road we will be ready to go to an anarchist style.
This is why the spanish failed and the russian communist failed. They attempted to leap frog the evolutuinary trail and brought about a style of government that they werent prepared for.

one must admit that it would be great if we all limited our own behavior and respected others,

If we could then most forms of government would work. But for now as you said we need government. The theories of capatilism, communism or anarchism are ideals to strive for not to try an implement in todays world.

[lsbskins1]

Grandpa-

Do not assume because I do not believe people are capable of the type of self control you advocate that I believe that the pendulum must swing full in the other direction and people must be completely dominated and controlled. I said ballance, not slavish devotion to any ideal. While it is desirable to strive, it is also foolish to expect that merely treating people as responsible individuals will make them such. For the present and the foreseeable future, there are more idiots in the world than positive reinforcement can account for.

[Mr. Jinx]

Quote by: SoylentGreen . Anarchism is a regulated system . One that does not use centralised government but decentralised government. There is a big difference between the words anarchy and anarchism. The first implies no government and the second self government. What definition of anarchism are you using.?

Is there really a difference?

Anarchism will always lead to anarchy! A central government is essential to any modern society, since law and order is not an easy thing to maintain.

[SoylentGreen]

Mr. Jinx A central government is essential to any modern society, since law and order is not an easy thing to maintain.

True as long as we are looking at a society that cover a large land area like america. But broken down into independant and smaller governing bodies then it becomes possible.
But as I said a lack of technology and resources and education make it just a dream for now. We need todays capatilist world to hopefully provide these things so that we can evolve to something better.

[Mr. Jinx]

Quote by: SoylentGreen True as long as we are looking at a society that cover a large land area like america. But broken down into independant and smaller governing bodies then it becomes possible. But as I said a lack of technology and resources and education make it just a dream for now. We need todays capatilist world to hopefully provide these things so that we can evolve to something better.

It could work in the 4th world society, but ask the native americans (or any native people) how "civilized society" treats them.

The Hippies tried it in the 60s and 70s and those didn't last that well either.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: grandpa T because humans often "battle for control," they should keep doing so.

I didn't say they should.


Ideally they wouldn't.


I'm only saying they will.

[GHook93]

Where I think Anarchy is fundamentally flawed, is that when one government collaspes another takes its place in some form. The Human race is geared for a necessity to have a government.

[MachineCode0110]

No more than we need warlords to control our area.


Simply, it will happen whether we want it or not.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 Where I think Anarchy is fundamentally flawed, is that when one government collaspes another takes its place in some form. The Human race is geared for a necessity to have a government.

Oh, I'm not saying authority/hierarchy can ever be totally abolished, or that we will all just magically get along. But we should definitely all work to reduce the need for authority as much as possible, and that obviously entails speaking against state power. If people become more conscious of this general need, systematic social divisions would be overrun by a sense of solidarity.

Trying to impose government has so many monstrous faults that we should not view it as inevitable, lest we end up exterminating ourselves.
The survival of the human race depends on us becoming more anarchic.
I know that sounds dramatic, but it makes sense.

Grandpa h.

[Alive]

Quote by: grandpa My interest is in changing attitudes in order to affect behavior.

What is your anarchist method of changing attitudes and behavior?

If organizations tend to be hierarchical, the critical thinker should consider why. The most obvious conclusion is how hierarchy benefits those at the top.

No, that's not the most obvious conclusion. Organizations tend to be hierarchical because some people are better leaders than others, and because not everyone can be a leader, since it is a specialized job. Hierarchy is efficient.

This requires more knowledge, not more of the ignorance that comes with simply carrying out orders. It requires a more intellectual culture, as well.

Yes? And how, specifically, are you going to bring this about?