Modern Somalia: an Anarchist Success Story?

[Kitsunegari]

1990s and early 2000s Somalia is used as an example of the supposed impracticality of anarchy, there are several problems with this argument, but it's also important to get the facts right about what has happened in Somalia since the collapse of the Communist regime. Here's one article by an anthropologist that objects to the mainstream view of the situation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."
Somalia's pastoral economy is now stronger than that of either neighboring Kenya or Ethiopia. It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country. Telecommunications have burgeoned in Somalia; a call from a mobile phone is cheaper in Somalia than anywhere else in Africa. A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu.

My conclusion is that anarchy is probably desirable for many Middle Eastern and African countries. In the former, there has been a tradition of often disinterested rule by distant imperial governments and in the latter of loose tribal confederations. The establishment of democracy leads to the larger or stronger tribes or ethnic groups establishing dominance, then alienating the others (power corrupts after all).

[Squiggle]

Are you kidding me? Its probably desirable, ignoring the thousands upon thousands of dead that are the direct cause and result of anarchy? If anything this is an argument for deregulated markets, but thats a far cry from a stateless society.

[Col. Tartleton]

Are you kidding me? Its probably desirable, ignoring the thousands upon thousands of dead that are the direct cause and result of anarchy? If anything this is an argument for deregulated markets, but thats a far cry from a stateless society.

Thousands dead... Perhaps bad compared to death rates in cozy countries but compared to nations with governments that kill their people or mismanage them into famines... Or the wars and demicide throughout the region and continent.

You'd have to show that this sort of thing isn't a symptom of East Africa, and is directly caused by the lack of a government.

[Squiggle]

Thousands dead... Perhaps bad compared to death rates in cozy countries but compared to nations with governments that kill their people or mismanage them into famines... Or the wars and demicide throughout the region and continent.

You'd have to show that this sort of thing isn't a symptom of East Africa, and is directly caused by the lack of a government.

Pretty self evident the civil war on taking over the country and forming the Government is a symptom of the lack of a stable Government.

[Kitsunegari]

Are you kidding me? Its probably desirable, ignoring the thousands upon thousands of dead that are the direct cause and result of anarchy? If anything this is an argument for deregulated markets, but thats a far cry from a stateless society.

Civil war =/= anarchy, the war was brought on by the totalitarian communist government. After its demise and the end of the heaviest fighting in the mid-90s to the beginning of the new war in the late 00s there was tremendous progress made in living conditions as detailed in the article.

[Squiggle]

Civil war =/= anarchy, the war was brought on by the totalitarian communist government. After its demise and the end of the heaviest fighting in the mid-90s to the beginning of the new war in the late 00s there was tremendous progress made in living conditions as detailed in the article.

Clearly I disagree that they arent one in the same. An actual peaceful, stable society without a state is an entirely hypothetical concept. The term anarchy might not mean civil war, but the state of anarchy will be one of civil war. Much like a left wing libertarian, these are dressed up concepts with no actual relation to reality.

Anarchy didnt bring about the increase in living standards [which has actually failed to be accurately demonstrated to be completely honest] laissez faire capitalism did, of which the anarchy and war covering the region inhibited.

[Denny Crane!]

Clearly I disagree that they arent one in the same. An actual peaceful, stable society without a state is an entirely hypothetical concept. The term anarchy might not mean civil war, but the state of anarchy will be one of civil war. Much like a left wing libertarian, these are dressed up concepts with no actual relation to reality.

Anarchy didnt bring about the increase in living standards [which has actually failed to be accurately demonstrated to be completely honest] laissez faire capitalism did, of which the anarchy and war covering the region inhibited.

Cant help but agree here, anarchism and anarchy are two different things in politics and Somalia certainly isnt organised, its a failed state.

[Kitsunegari]

Clearly I disagree that they arent one in the same. An actual peaceful, stable society without a state is an entirely hypothetical concept. The term anarchy might not mean civil war, but the state of anarchy will be one of civil war. Much like a left wing libertarian, these are dressed up concepts with no actual relation to reality.

Anarchy didnt bring about the increase in living standards [which has actually failed to be accurately demonstrated to be completely honest] laissez faire capitalism did, of which the anarchy and war covering the region inhibited.

The state doesn't antedate mankind, it was most likely invented by conquering tribes as a way to make permanent their exploitation of their victims (tribute became taxation). As discussed in the article, many parts of Africa remained stateless for quite some time. They didn't record their history so we can't really say how things were, but clearly the attempts at a centralized government of any kind have failed miserably as it ends up being a power grab among the various tribes or other factions and eventually civil war. In contrast the living standards of Somalia rose vis-a-vis their neighbors when there was a reversion to their traditional stateless society. In Western history there are fewer examples (see medieval Iceland) but they seem fairly promising.

[Squiggle]

The state doesn't antedate mankind, it was most likely invented by conquering tribes as a way to make permanent their exploitation of their victims (tribute became taxation). As discussed in the article, many parts of Africa remained stateless for quite some time. They didn't record their history so we can't really say how things were, but clearly the attempts at a centralized government of any kind have failed miserably as it ends up being a power grab among the various tribes or other factions and eventually civil war. In contrast the living standards of Somalia rose vis-a-vis their neighbors when there was a reversion to their traditional stateless society. In Western history there are fewer examples (see medieval Iceland) but they seem fairly promising.

The fact that stateless societies dont actually exist is indiciative of a systemic issue with them. The bold is just conjecture, and strikes me as exceedingly naive. In small family units that are made up entirely of kin, you simply boot out anyone who doesnt adhere to whatever code of conduct you [or the alpha] generally establish. Societies are the outgrowth of these individual units coming together for the purpose of mutual benefit [its long been established in anthropology that even during the hunter gatherer stage of humanity there was trade of tools and women, thought even to be an annual affair in consistent locations]. As that pool of people become larger, the ties that bind you to one another loosen.

Beyond this general anthropological speculation that you [and I] have engaged in, this article still hasnt shown anything, and thats already been brought up. You've dogmatically overlooked those questions:

1) The article doesnt specify what areas of Somalia have seen an increase in living relative to their neighbours. Is puntland doing better off, or the country as a sum?

2) We have really no idea just how stateless it is on the local level. The country is in a state of civil war and anarchy, its mostly supposition on how heavy handed whatever warlord in the particular area of the time actually is in imposing whatever, really.

3) The entire argument that could be made in favour of Somalias anarchy, is that its a capitalist kind of anarchy. So this isnt necessarily any argument whatever for a stateless society, merely [an of now vague] a possible example of what happens when theres no Government to effectively regulate economics affairs. We dont know what the murder or rape rate is very accurately, what it use to be, in what regions, nor do we fully even understand the causal relationship between all these factors.

Simply put, that a state is in a state of anarchy, where perhaps some rural villages have actually engaged in political anarchy during this period and seen some degree of relative growth is proof of nothing. We dont have enough data and if the data exists it hasnt been provided in any intelligible form.

[spanish_emperor]

Anarchy didnt bring about the increase in living standards...laissez faire capitalism did

eh no. Technology and competition did this. Laissez faire is simply a way of achieving innovation and competition.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Anarchy didnt bring about the increase in living standards [which has actually failed to be accurately demonstrated to be completely honest] laissez faire capitalism did, of which the anarchy and war covering the region inhibited.

In Europe? Laissez Faire kickstarted the Industrial Revolution?

I'm pretty sure that, in opposition to Laissez Faire, the capital, money flow and technological development necessary to create an Industrial Revolution were created by Mercantilism.

And believe me, in every possible way, Mercantilism was not about laissez faire... it was about trampling the other State's ability to sell stuff in your market(an action which was supported by the local merchants), strong taxes on imports, Fleet Enforced Protectionism and playing a zero-deficit game of international trade. Of course, that only worked for some time and given the particular characteristics of the money flow.

[Squiggle]

In Europe? Laissez Faire kickstarted the Industrial Revolution?

I'm pretty sure that, in opposition to Laissez Faire, the capital, money flow and technological development necessary to create an Industrial Revolution were created by Mercantilism.

And believe me, in every possible way, Mercantilism was not about laissez faire... it was about trampling the other State's ability to sell stuff in your market(an action which was supported by the local merchants), strong taxes on imports, Fleet Enforced Protectionism and playing a zero-deficit game of international trade. Of course, that only worked for some time and given the particular characteristics of the money flow.

I never said any of that so you can ramble to someone else.

[NotYetRegistered]

Can you call it an anarchy when Somaliland and Puntland are being governed by local governments?

[hellheaven1987]

Can you call it an anarchy when Somaliland and Puntland are being governed by local governments?

Puntland has a government? Council of Pirates you mean?

[Condottiere 40K]

Is the point being made that self-interest self-regulates inter-relationships at a local level permitting commercial interactions?

[Vanoi]

The words Somalia and success should never be put in the same sentence.

[Enemy of the State]

It is very difficult to say which areas of Somalia are in actual anarchy. The traditional Somalian legal system of Xeer is anarchist in nature, which is why so much effort was put into destroying it by both colonial powers and the later dictatorship. The Somalis are an anti-authoritarian bunch. It is still intact in many regions, but elsewhere warlords rule, which are no different from small states.

At the very least, it is proof that no government can be better than bad government.

[Astaroth]

At the very least, it is proof that no government can be better than bad government.

No, it mainly proves that if there is anarchy, local warlords will soon take control.

[saglam2000]

Half of somalia is under local government control, puntland and somaliland. It's hardly a success story in the anarchic areas of the country where they got that whole famine issue sitting in their laps.

[Claudius Gothicus]

If success is going back to the Stone Ages then yes... Somalia is probably the greatest geographic region(it's not a country and the UN should face it) in the world.