Somalia: Example of a No-Government Society?

[Crustanarchy]

I disagree with this: first off, the warlords that practically rule this "country" are fighting against each other, this has nothing to do with the innocents of this country. There is constant conflict between factions in Somalia and the countries of Kenya, etc.

What are your takes on this argument? I would appreciate it if I could quote/use your arguments and critiques for tomorrow's lesson which is going to talk about Somalia as a no-government society.

Somalia is a hell-hole but I really don't believe that it is an example of "anarchy" or a "no-government/state society".

[|Y|]

It's not by any stretch of the imagination. The warlords are essentially authoritarian thugs who refuse to allow a government to happen, despite that there is an overwhelming majority of people for a government. The warlords would lose their power if they couldn't just kill whomever and steal from whomever they wanted, if they were actually assimilated into the government as a whole. There's a big leap from going from warlord to democratic politician, and they cannot make that leap because they will lose too much.

The thing about democracy, as opposed to fascism or other forms of governance, is that it's very inefficient, it keeps the government from doing wide ranging and pervasive things. The most efficient form of government of course is a dictatorship, and for the warlords in various regions, that's exactly what they have.

[Zazaban]

It's a fine example of anarcho-capitalism. However, nobody really likes anarcho-capitalism.

[Imnaxus]

Somalia has more government than any of us, actually. This thread assumes that a government isn't a government unless it engulfs the entire country from border to border. The warlords and their followers are hierarchists, regardless.

[thegeoman]

Somalia has more government than any of us, actually. This thread assumes that a government isn't a government unless it engulfs the entire country from border to border. The warlords and their followers are hierarchists, regardless.

Right, national borders aren't necessarily organic or self-justifying. Somalia has many competing interests in terms of who is vying for complete power over the land within those artificial borders. But the fact is, if you are not a warlord, you are being ruled.

[|Y|]

Somalia has more government than any of us, actually. This thread assumes that a government isn't a government unless it engulfs the entire country from border to border. The warlords and their followers are hierarchists, regardless.

That's very true and I probably should have said the warlords are against the national/federal government that the vast majority of the people are *for* precisely because it would take their power away and make it "more representitive." This of course isn't the anarchist goal either, mind you, but it's not our goal for entirely different reasons.

We'd consider the warlords governments in and of themselves, as you aptly noted. I should've clarified that, because I was looking at the Somliland elections and how the warlords were basically raping and pillaging to get their way. It's quite pathetic. Haven't paid much attention to their politics since then though, I admit.

[Noleaders]

Somalia is a failed state not an anarchy. There's a subtle difference.
A failed state results in lots of groups fighting to take control ie a civil war. Im sure you've heard that power isnt fond of a vacuum. Anarchy on the other hand is rather than the abolition of power is radically changing the way its distributed and organised so that no one can dominate others.

Its not anarcho-capitalism its just basically a huge mess.

You also have to take into account the damage done by the previous state and the fact its a develpoing nation.

oh and http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

[Stealth]

It's a fine example of anarcho-capitalism. However, nobody really likes anarcho-capitalism.

Exactly.
Anarchism at its root means no rulers, but the working definition is a little more sophisticated than that. The warlords are just especially brutal rulers fighting for control. This is the opposite of Anarchism.

In fact, I would argue that the situation with the warlords is even farther from Anarchy than a working Republic....at least in some ways. Even though the official state has been dissolved, what you have is an ultra authoritarian situation based entirely on violent coercion and hierarchy.

[Noleaders]

It's a fine example of anarcho-capitalism. However, nobody really likes anarcho-capitalism.

Exactly.
Anarchism at its root means no rulers, but the working definition is a little more sophisticated than that. The warlords are just especially brutal rulers fighting for control. This is the opposite of Anarchism.

In fact, I would argue that the situation with the warlords is even farther from Anarchy than a working Republic....at least in some ways. Even though the official state has been dissolved, what you have is an ultra authoritarian situation based entirely on violent coercion and hierarchy.

The problem is nobody believes that this isnt inevitable. This is why people support the state, they dont like the coercion but believe its the lesser of two evils. Its not enough to just say Somalia isnt an anarchy because its violent.

[Stealth]

Well, a failed state is worse than a functional one in most ways.

This is why i take issue with Anarchists who think that Anarchism will emerge out of the fall of western civilization. I dont believe that it will. It would either devolve into brutal gang like hierarchy or other world powers would step in an exert their influence. The government collapsing does not equal Anarchy, at least not in the sense that we use the word.

Anarchism was functioning in Spain. I have a lot of respect for the Syndicalist tradition as they are the ones who pulled off the only successful living model of Anarchy in practice, though it was short lived do to intervention from other global powers. The difference is that there was already a large segment of the population who was organized into workers unions, so the structure for an Anarchist society was already present before the fascist coup, which is very different from just watching the aftermath of a failed state and hoping everyone will suddenly become enlightened Anarchists. Its just not realistic.

You need to set the stage for a rational and enlightened society by organizing and educating while the state is still functional and stable, creating alternatives to the states way of doing things, fighting for more immediate class victories, then when the shit goes down your structures and comrades are already in place ready to replace the state with an egalitarian alternative.

This was lacking in Somalia.

[Crustanarchy]

There's a pretty decent video discussing this done by Stefan Molyneux. He also concludes that the people of Somalia are, in fact, better off without a government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBuPECU0_P0&feature=related

[A is A]

Hi guys,

For anyone that's still interested in this topic:

Somalia is not in anarchy, to an extended degree it's a kritarchy. (check wikipedia for 'xeer')

Somalis (like many African cultures) are traditionally a stateless society. For many centuries before colonialism they were making use of customary law, which they call xeer, to insure the safety of their life, liberty and property. They organize themselves along a clan structure, which ties into certain aspects of their laws. They're pretty ardent individualists and don't have leaders (at least not ones that boss them around).

Before British and Italian authorities left in the 60s they set up a democratic government. This worked ok for about 9 years before the controlling clan started using the vast powers of the state against members of different clans. This led to a civil war lasting about 30 years until the dictator was finally thrown out in 1991. Some clans kept on fighting over the bones of the over thrown regime, though most simply went back to their traditional form of stateless governance.

A key point to understand when analysing the current mess is that "democracy" and their traditional form of governance don't mix. People always vote according to the clan they're in, thus the clan with the most people always 'wins'. So whenever there's any expectation of a new central government forming it's basically an all out war with winner take all. Some clans fight to be in control, most others fight simply to prevent any-one else from being in control. Their only experience with central government was colonialism and a dictatorship, so they're pretty sure of the stakes.

And the Northern regions have been pretty peaceful for the last 19 years. Most of the fighting is done in the South where the capital is.

[|Y|]

Slight addition though: the fighting is done where the ports and waterways are. The north is desolate as far as resources are concerned.

[Noleaders]

Just thought i'd add another link

http://redirectingat.com/?id=593X1004&u ... omalia.mp3

[1381]

I agree that it is in no way an example of an anarchist society (by contrast, it is an example of a stateless society, but in no way the kind envisaged by anarchism), so, even regarding the inherent contradictions in anarcho-capitalism, how is it fair to describe Somalia as ancap? I disagree.

Indeed, I have doubts about the accuracy of labelling it as a capitalist society in the first place. Possibly proto-capitalist, but capitalist? No. Virtually the entire area is marked by lack of development, something which capitalism encourages, builds and, indeed, cannot possibly exist without (how can you exploit without the proper infrastructure - industrial or political?) I understand why a lot of you are keen to label it as such, and I understand where the idea of it as ancap comes from given the hierarchy of the situation in Somalia resembling in many ways an extreme, microcosmic example of 'grass-roots' capitalism, but I don't think it's as easy to label as anarcho-capitalist. As A is A said earlier, kritarchy is a more accurate description.