Somalia - Anarchy without Chaos

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart Yup Grandpa and some of the other Anarchists on the board who think life would be much better without government. I pointed out that the only example I could think of was warlord ruled Somalia.

Which is an entirely dishonest example. Somalia is run largely by Islamic warlords, which has absolutely nothing to do with anarchism. You could just as well argue it's an example of Ronald McDonald's principles being applied. It would be just as relevant.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: grandpa Somalia is run largely by Islamic warlords, which has absolutely nothing to do with anarchism.

Sorry, but it IS anarchism. You simply dismiss it because the reality doesn't seem to match up to your dreamy, utopian ideal of how you thought it would be.

Unless, of course, you have some better examples.

.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sonart . Sorry, but it IS anarchism. You simply dismiss it because the reality doesn't seem to match up to your dreamy, utopian ideal of how you thought it would be. Unless, of course, you have some better examples. .

Incorrect, the "ism on the end of the word anarchy implies a doctrine, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought.
if you want to refer to what is happening in somalia as a school of thought on anarchism then it's up to you to show me which philosopher is recommending that a country be raped and asset stripped by capitalists and then left impoverished and in the hands of warlords .
leaving the population with nothing more than death and misery.

And i am not talking about the denialism by the right, but philosophers who supported anarchism such as Rousseau, Proudhon or even Kropotkin.

In somalia all you have is a state of lawlessness and chaos otherwise known as anarchy.
There is a big difference between anarchy and anarchism.

Quote by: Sonart View Post Yup Grandpa and some of the other Anarchists on the board who think life would be much better without government. I pointed out that the only example I could think of was warlord ruled Somalia.

And if that comment is in any way meant to refer to me, you better be able to provide some examples.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: SoylentGreen And if that comment is in any way meant to refer to me, you better be able to provide some examples.

The self proclaimed "anarchists" on this board have been blathering on about their Utopian nonsense for years, whether they call it anarchism, social anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, communism, or whatever, without a single example of it ever actually working as anything more than a anti-authoritarian wet dream. I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular, but if it applies to you, then so be it.

You guys have problems with authority... I get it. But simply doing away with government is not a solution... in fact it's impossible. It's like Grandpa's insane notion that we just do away with money. Sure, barter might work in poor, isolated communities, but the civilized world let that horse out of the barn 5,000 years ago. Money may be "the root of all evil", but it's simplistic in the extreme to think we can simply do away with it and - presto - it everything's solved. It's like saying let's do away with writing. Can't happen.

You want to define anarchism by schools of thought?? Fine, but first, show me a working example, because the only one I can see is the one I pointed out... Somalia. Otherwise, the only other example that comes to mind is the Feudalism of the Dark Ages, and wasn't that a lovely time in Western history.

.

[The Decider]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Incorrect, the "ism on the end of the word anarchy implies a doctrine, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought. if you want to refer to what is happening in somalia as a school of thought on anarchism then it's up to you to show me which philosopher is recommending that a country be raped and asset stripped by capitalists and then left impoverished and in the hands of warlords . leaving the population with nothing more than death and misery. And i am not talking about the denialism by the right, but philosophers who supported anarchism such as Rousseau, Proudhon or even Kropotkin. In somalia all you have is a state of lawlessness and chaos otherwise known as anarchy. There is a big difference between anarchy and anarchism.

I don't know if you are an "anarchist" or not, whatever the philosophical brand, but you seem to have some understanding of issue; enough that I expected a more detailed and reasoned counter-argument to the Somalia anarchy/anarchism proponents. Perhaps you can't be bothered with a bunch of anarcho-capitalist arguments and felt it necessary to dismiss them entirely. Or maybe the thread has already beat the dead horse to death. Not wanting to read the entire thread I decided to offer the semblance of a debate again (if there ever was one) and in the process maybe learn for myself whether or not the Somalia anarchist argument has any merit at all.

I believe good government is possible and usually reject libertarian/free market arguments. But Somalia is an interesting case and, whatever the merits of the argument, it is a real world example from which to draw lessons about what anarchy/anarchism is or is not and whether any of the anarchism theories are practical or desirable in the modern world. So here goes my brief collection of two debate arguments and some sources for review. I hope you and at least one other poster can glean enough information to start and sustain a real debate about anarchy/anarchism. It would be fascinating.


The Case for Somalia as a Successful Anarchist Society

First, I'll list the (mostly anarcho-capitalist and libertarian anarchist) scholars promoting this view: Peter T. Leeson BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; Alex Tabarrok Professor of Economics at George Mason University; David Friedman (son of Nobel-Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman) anarcho-capitalist writer; Bruce L. Benson anarcho-capitalist writer and legal theorist DeVoe L. Moore Professor and Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University (Benson though has his objections too); Benjamin Powell is an assistant professor of economics at Suffolk University

The basic argument goes like this (Leeson's words):

"I have argued that anarchy sometimes works better than you think. In the face of obstacles that stand in the way of individuals’ ability to cooperate for mutual gain, individuals have the incentive to develop solutions to overcome these obstacles. This is as true in society ruled by government as one that exists without government. Where the state does not provide law, order, or the institutions required to produce these things, there is a tendency for private institutions to emerge to perform these roles instead. The overwhelming balance of evidence suggests, however, that the large-scale division of labor on which modern economic prosperity depends can be sustained only with state-like institutions—i.e., public enforcement of laws and contracts."

In other words: (1) no government is better than bad government, and (2) when cooperation can lead to mutual gains, people will find ingenious ways to cooperate for their mutual benefit, the market cures all; never government

The Somalia case (allegedly) supports this view in three ways: 1) Somali customary laws work just fine without formal government systems, 2) the Somali economy has shown important signs of strength, 3) the pirate economy is a successful "stateless" society in Somalia as it has been through much of world history.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Cato Unbound » August 2007: Who Needs Government? Pirates, Collapsed States, and the Possibility of Anarchy
Marginal Revolution: Somalia and the theory of anarchy
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ...alia_Paper.doc
http://tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/upl...per_at_mps.pdf
Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
Somalia @ National Geographic Magazine
http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/280-nenova-harford.pdf


The Case Against Somalia Anarchy

Scholars: too many to name, but the links below contain the core group, most social anarchists and specialists on Somali politics and history.

The basic argument goes like this (Dani Rodrik): Unlike in pirate societies or pre-colonial Angola, modern economies require an elaborate and ever-evolving division of labor—among owners of firms, managers, and their employees, among producers up and down the value chain, and between producers and providers of supporting services such as finance, accounting, and legal services. The complexity, fluidity, and geographic non-specificity of these activities leave too much room for opportunistic behavior for self-enforcing arrangements to work well. They require an external backstop in the form of government-enforced rules.

In other words, eventually a state will emerge, international pressures corrupt the positive aspects of anarchism (if any), some kind of collective order (government or whatever) needs to restrain capitalism (anarcho or whatever).

The Somalia case is (allegedly) not anarchism because 1) despots remain in the form of warlords, 2) the "free market" is not free of world capitalism and big power interference, 3) anarchy is about order not disorder and mayhem, 4) the most successful states in Africa (Botswana chief among them) have good governments not an absence of government.

Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » The Limits of Self-Enforcing Agreements
The Truth About Somalia And Anarchy
FAQ: Anarchy in Somalia and its relevance to Anarchism/Statelessness | Articles & Summaries in Economics, Political Science, Psychology, & More
A New Praxis in a changed world: Anarchic Somalia's piracy problem
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/res...nstAnarchy.pdf

[The Decider]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Incorrect, the "ism on the end of the word anarchy implies a doctrine, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought. if you want to refer to what is happening in somalia as a school of thought on anarchism then it's up to you to show me which philosopher is recommending that a country be raped and asset stripped by capitalists and then left impoverished and in the hands of warlords . leaving the population with nothing more than death and misery. And i am not talking about the denialism by the right, but philosophers who supported anarchism such as Rousseau, Proudhon or even Kropotkin. In somalia all you have is a state of lawlessness and chaos otherwise known as anarchy. There is a big difference between anarchy and anarchism.

I don't know if you are an "anarchist" or not, whatever the philosophical brand, but you seem to have some understanding of issue; enough that I expected a more detailed and reasoned counter-argument to the Somalia anarchy/anarchism proponents. Perhaps you can't be bothered with a bunch of anarcho-capitalist arguments and felt it necessary to dismiss them entirely. Or maybe the thread has already beat the dead horse to death. Not wanting to read the entire thread I decided to offer the semblance of a debate again (if there ever was one) and in the process maybe learn for myself whether or not the Somalia anarchist argument has any merit at all.

I believe good government is possible and usually reject libertarian/free market arguments. But Somalia is an interesting case and, whatever the merits of the argument, it is a real world example from which to draw lessons about what anarchy/anarchism is or is not and whether any of the anarchism theories are practical or desirable in the modern world. So here goes my brief collection of two debate arguments and some sources for review. I hope you and at least one other poster can glean enough information to start and sustain a real debate about anarchy/anarchism. It would be fascinating.


The Case for Somalia as a Successful Anarchist Society

First, I'll list the (mostly anarcho-capitalist and libertarian anarchist) scholars promoting this view: Peter T. Leeson BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; Alex Tabarrok Professor of Economics at George Mason University; David Friedman (son of Nobel-Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman) anarcho-capitalist writer; Bruce L. Benson anarcho-capitalist writer and legal theorist DeVoe L. Moore Professor and Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University (Benson though has his objections too); Benjamin Powell is an assistant professor of economics at Suffolk University

The basic argument goes like this (Leeson's words):

"I have argued that anarchy sometimes works better than you think. In the face of obstacles that stand in the way of individuals’ ability to cooperate for mutual gain, individuals have the incentive to develop solutions to overcome these obstacles. This is as true in society ruled by government as one that exists without government. Where the state does not provide law, order, or the institutions required to produce these things, there is a tendency for private institutions to emerge to perform these roles instead. The overwhelming balance of evidence suggests, however, that the large-scale division of labor on which modern economic prosperity depends can be sustained only with state-like institutions—i.e., public enforcement of laws and contracts."

In other words: (1) no government is better than bad government, and (2) when cooperation can lead to mutual gains, people will find ingenious ways to cooperate for their mutual benefit, the market cures all; never government

The Somalia case (allegedly) supports this view in three ways: 1) Somali customary laws work just fine without formal government systems, 2) the Somali economy has shown important signs of strength, 3) the pirate economy is a successful "stateless" society in Somalia as it has been through much of world history.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Cato Unbound » August 2007: Who Needs Government? Pirates, Collapsed States, and the Possibility of Anarchy
Marginal Revolution: Somalia and the theory of anarchy
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ...alia_Paper.doc
http://tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/upl...per_at_mps.pdf
Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
Somalia @ National Geographic Magazine
http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/280-nenova-harford.pdf


The Case Against Somalia Anarchy

Scholars: too many to name, but the links below contain the core group, most social anarchists and specialists on Somali politics and history.

The basic argument goes like this (Dani Rodrik): "Unlike in pirate societies or pre-colonial Angola, modern economies require an elaborate and ever-evolving division of labor—among owners of firms, managers, and their employees, among producers up and down the value chain, and between producers and providers of supporting services such as finance, accounting, and legal services. The complexity, fluidity, and geographic non-specificity of these activities leave too much room for opportunistic behavior for self-enforcing arrangements to work well. They require an external backstop in the form of government-enforced rules."

In other words, eventually a state will emerge, international pressures corrupt the positive aspects of anarchism (if any), some kind of collective order (government or whatever) needs to restrain capitalism (anarcho or whatever).

The Somalia case is (allegedly) not anarchism because 1) despots remain in the form of warlords, 2) the "free market" is not free of world capitalism and big power interference, 3) anarchy is about order not disorder and mayhem, 4) the most successful states in Africa (Botswana chief among them) have good governments not an absence of government.

Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » The Limits of Self-Enforcing Agreements
The Truth About Somalia And Anarchy
FAQ: Anarchy in Somalia and its relevance to Anarchism/Statelessness | Articles & Summaries in Economics, Political Science, Psychology, & More
A New Praxis in a changed world: Anarchic Somalia's piracy problem
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/res...nstAnarchy.pdf

[The Decider]

Double post

[The Decider]

----

[The Decider]

double

[Thanatos]

Anarcho-capitalists?

You guys can't decide whether Somalia is a successful anarchist state or something so failed and horrible that it's best to distance yourselves from it. I'd say it's a bit of both. Somalia is about as nice as anarchy will ever get, take it or leave it.

There will always be powerful corporations looking for ways to exploit the situation for their own gain, there will always be religious crazies making their own laws, and suddenly lobbyists seem kind of cute and cuddly compared to the Somali system of deciding who gets what. That is anarchism.

Take it or leave it. You can't have your perfect world, at least not this easily. There will be problems if you get what you want. Maybe you think they'll be even smaller problems than what we have now; that's not automatically crazy. What is crazy is pretending like you are not giving anything up. Yes it's nice to be able to give yourself the freedom to have your own laws, but maybe you can't sleep knowing that your standard means some people are probably aggressively implementing Sharia with machineguns and blowtorches. You can't have nice things because this particular nice thing doesn't make sense.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sonart . The self proclaimed "anarchists" on this board have been blathering on about their Utopian nonsense for years, whether they call it anarchism, social anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, communism, or whatever, without a single example of it ever actually working as anything more than a anti-authoritarian wet dream. I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular, but if it applies to you, then so be it.

It's called philosophy, practiced by any who discuss any of the political and social issues. That would include anything that is seen as a going concern today.
If you have an example of a actually working authoritarian regime that we can compare the ones you think cannot work, then do show me.

You guys have problems with authority... I get it

.

No you don't, because no matter how many times the idea of self governance over centralised government, not no government at all, is mentioned, it always gets ignored for the favoured strawman of wanting no governent. Anarchism is an issue of where authority comes from not removing it entirely.
The only ones i know who are completely against any form of government are the nihilists but then they don't believe in very much at all.

But simply doing away with government is not a solution..

.

Neither is the insistence that government must have some centralised source to work.

in fact it's impossible.

had i asked a peasant of the eleventh century what he thought about ordinary people rising above their station to office he, like you, would have laughed.

It's like Grandpa's insane notion that we just do away with money. Sure, barter might work in poor, isolated communities, but the civilized world let that horse out of the barn 5,000 years ago. Money may be "the root of all evil", but it's simplistic in the extreme to think we can simply do away with it and - presto - it everything's solved. It's like saying let's do away with writing. Can't happen.

I will let granpa make that argument.
But the more accurate quote is "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil,"
And in that granpa's idea is correct. Much of the fault with capitalism is that it has made money into a commodity to be traded for profit rather than a token of trade.

You want to define anarchism by schools of thought?? Fine, but first, show me a working example, because the only one I can see is the one I pointed out... Somalia. Otherwise, the only other example that comes to mind is the Feudalism of the Dark Ages, and wasn't that a lovely time in Western history.

I certainly have no intention of arguing some superstitious and bloodthirsty warlord would make a good ruler. To pretend that any of the supporters of anarchism here are trying to, is the most dishonest of approach to the debate.
And i have no idea why you would think feudalism has anything to do with anarchism.

It's not necessary to supply a working model, only that the concept has enough merit that it can be considered as a possible future society. After all is that not the best that the capitalists can do. Why is it fair that the anarchists must create a utopia when they do not.
And i can show examples where people are starting to think outside of the box when it comes to centralised government and the unsupported belief that there must be one leader. Through political parties creating co-leaderships instead of just one leader or factories owned by the workers with committee leadership.

The idea that there must be one leader is being challanged.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: The Decider "I have argued that anarchy sometimes works better than you think. In the face of obstacles that stand in the way of individuals’ ability to cooperate for mutual gain, individuals have the incentive to develop solutions to overcome these obstacles. This is as true in society ruled by government as one that exists without government. Where the state does not provide law, order, or the institutions required to produce these things, there is a tendency for private institutions to emerge to perform these roles instead. The overwhelming balance of evidence suggests, however, that the large-scale division of labor on which modern economic prosperity depends can be sustained only with state-like institutions—i.e., public enforcement of laws and contracts." In other words: (1) no government is better than bad government, and (2) when cooperation can lead to mutual gains, people will find ingenious ways to cooperate for their mutual benefit, the market cures all; never government

1) I am guessing that someone is going to point to the part in bold.

But I would suggest that he is short cutting his statement.
From reading his first paragraph it is obvious that the intent is that governance continues, but the source from which it derives has shifted.

Where the state does not provide law, order, or the institutions required to produce these things, there is a tendency for private institutions to emerge to perform these roles instead.

2) As capitalism has proved. Given the right incentive people will be creative. Anarchism is not an economic theory like capitalism and does not necessarily mean that the two can not have mutual existence in some form.

The Somalia case (allegedly) supports this view in three ways: 1) Somali customary laws work just fine without formal government systems, 2) the Somali economy has shown important signs of strength, 3) the pirate economy is a successful "stateless" society in Somalia as it has been through much of world history.

1) as far as i am aware they are not listed as a stable government.
2) it's economy is based on theft, they have no natural resources to sustain their economy.
3) It's not sustainable.
And i am not finding much to suggest that it is any of the three above.
Breakaway Somali region stable as brother nation unravels – Somali Breaking News & Video Community
Somalia as a Failed State: How a Forgotten African Nation is Struggling to Survive Amid Chaos

The Somalia case is (allegedly) not anarchism because 1) despots remain in the form of warlords, 2) the "free market" is not free of world capitalism and big power interference, 3) anarchy is about order not disorder and mayhem, 4) the most successful states in Africa (Botswana chief among them) have good governments not an absence of government.

Agree.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Decider double

Ouch!! Really got your tie caught in printer, didn't ya. Hate when that happens.

Quote by: SoylentGreen It's called philosophy, practiced by any who discuss any of the political and social issues.

That's nice, except that 'philosophy' about the nature of human existence may be one thing, but 'philosophy' on the conduct of human societies is something else. If you're going to advocate how you think people should govern themselves, it would be nice if you had some rational evidence that it might actually work.

Otherwise it's just wishful navel gazing.

.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sonart . Ouch!! Really got your tie caught in printer, didn't ya. Hate when that happens. That's nice, except that 'philosophy' about the nature of human existence may be one thing, but 'philosophy' on the conduct of human societies is something else. If you're going to advocate how you think people should govern themselves, it would be nice if you had some rational evidence that it might actually work. Otherwise it's just wishful navel gazing. .

You mean the same rational evidence that suggests a republic might work. Yet can you show me a republic that fits the same lofty goal of achieving the utopian ideal that you insist anarchism must have?

And i have said that there is rational evidence to suggest that the idea that we need one leader is being challenged.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: SoylentGreen You mean the same rational evidence that suggests a republic might work. Yet can you show me a republic that fits the same lofty goal of achieving the utopian ideal that you insist anarchism must have?

No, but there's plenty of rational evidence to suggest that Somalia is a terrible, terrible place to live compared to our western democracies.

We're spoiled. No landmines, no malaria because we eradicated it, highways, laws against rape, etc. There are people who would get rid of it so they can make more money, so they can be more selfish, so they're free to drive down those highways as fast as they want as drunk ad they want without a seatbelt.

You guys are bored. You're tired of this relatively predictable life. You've gone a little bit crazy...

I'm still sane. The Somali lifestyle will not bring meaning back into your lives. It will not even make you rich. Dysentery solves no problems. Public health does, even if you're not allowed to think so. Make another wish.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Thanatos No, but there's plenty of rational evidence to suggest that Somalia is a terrible, terrible place to live compared to our western democracies. We're spoiled. No landmines, no malaria because we eradicated it, highways, laws against rape, etc. There are people who would get rid of it so they can make more money, so they can be more selfish, so they're free to drive down those highways as fast as they want as drunk ad they want without a seatbelt. You guys are bored. You're tired of this relatively predictable life. You've gone a little bit crazy... I'm still sane. The Somali lifestyle will not bring meaning back into your lives. It will not even make you rich. Dysentery solves no problems. Public health does, even if you're not allowed to think so. Make another wish.

I do not know why you are addressing this to me. I have already stated that i am not advocating in any way what somalia has. That what is considered anarchism and the anarchy that is happening in somalia are two different things.

If this thread is just about the lawlessness and chaos of a county then fine. But to drag in anarchism as if it is a philosophy that leads to or in any way suggests that somalia is a good thing is nothing more than a lie.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: SoylentGreen You mean the same rational evidence that suggests a republic might work. Yet can you show me a republic that fits the same lofty goal of achieving the utopian ideal that you insist anarchism must have?

At the very least I can show you examples of a republic - several, in fact - that have functioned over time with a reasonable degree of success.

Quote by: SoylentGreen And i have said that there is rational evidence to suggest that the idea that we need one leader is being challenged.

Rational evidence including working examples? I could probably give you rational evidence that turtles can fly, but until I show you one, it's all just hypothetical.

And given that human history has advanced lo these past 5,000 years to more government, not less, one has to wonder why that hypothetical has yet to be successfully tested?

.

[Angry Citizen]

That what is considered anarchism and the anarchy that is happening in somalia are two different things.

Funny how that works. Anarchy is a microscopic theory that has repeatedly failed to have any application on the macroscopic level, just like communism. And yet you continue to tout both. You can argue all you want that Somalia isn't what you wanted, but the argument isn't that you do want a Somalia-like existence, but rather that a Somalia-like existence is the inevitable result of anarchism.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sonart . At the very least I can show you examples of a republic - several, in fact - that have functioned over time with a reasonable degree of success. .

The same with anarchism.
List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I will point out the perfect utopian example in there as soon as you point out your perfect utopian republic.

Rational evidence including working examples? I could probably give you rational evidence that turtles can fly, but until I show you one, it's all just hypothetical.

I imagine leanardo da vinci faced the same objections.

And given that human history has advanced lo these past 5,000 years to more government, not less, one has to wonder why that hypothetical has yet to be successfully tested?

We have a couple of thousand years of history of feudal rule. Hypothetically, where was feudal rule successfully tested? If it wasn't then can we assume that feudalism did not exist?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Funny how that works. Anarchy is a microscopic theory that has repeatedly failed to have any application on the macroscopic level, just like communism. And yet you continue to tout both. You can argue all you want that Somalia isn't what you wanted, but the argument isn't that you do want a Somalia-like existence, but rather that a Somalia-like existence is the inevitable result of anarchism.

If it is the inevitable result of anarchism, then you connect the dots. Show me the words of any philosopher who wrote in favor of anarchism that stated the best ways of achieving their aims was to asset strip a country and throw it to the mercy of trigger happy warlords.