NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/1126/images/5.cocacola-welcome.jpg

In another thread, a significant people voted that they'd prefer anarchy to a strong central government. Many here align with anarchist or at least very libertarian ideologies.

The problem with those is that they haven't often been put into practice. Governments don't want to give up power, and electorates rarely vote for really drastic changes to the status quo. There was however at least one country a while ago in which the government disappeared: Somalia. When their government collapsed and various factions failed to win control and form a new one, Mogadishu was left outside and had no state for years.

But that wasn't particularly nice. Armed gangs, thugs and militias carved up the city, stole whatever they could and occasionally fired mortars at each other's suburbs, killing civilians in the process.

So what went wrong? Is the existence of such armed thugs willing to go by "might makes right" a flaw in anarchist ideology, or simply a peculiarity that can be avoided? If so, how?

I think its a flaw in anarchist ideas. There's pretty much no way to ensure people do not have some sort of conflict, that could eventually escalate into armed gangs. In a way it would be like making a mistake on human nature in much the same way as Marx did.

Somalia might not be the best example, since there are preexisting conflicts present, but I think that it would be hard to imagine a realistic society where people do not have disagreements that require government (of some sort) mediation.

A lot of people point to the tribes of pre-history, or very isolated societies in the current era who lives in similar conditions to those times, as examples of self-governing village level communes. And these work OK, provided that there is plenty of space and adequate natural resources for all these communities to live without constantly tripping over one another. In much of the world, this is not possible, certainly not anywhere in Europe, the Mid-East/North Africa, and the most of Asia. When there isn't enough to go round (as is the case in every modern city of any significant size) you will naturally get gang/tribe warfare, which is exactly what happened in Mogadishu.

It is also OK provided one i happy to accept the idea of ostracism. Most of these societies work/worked by simply excluding those deemed undesirable, and work/worked on a system of peer pressure and might-is-right. Essentially it was the same as playground politics. Amish communities are an example of this.

I did that thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450280&highlight=Somali) three years ago. ;)

I did that thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450280&highlight=Somali) three years ago. ;)

Yep. The place was a shit-hole then, and it still is now... Gotta feel sorry for them, living the anarcho-capitalist's wet dreams.

I think its a flaw in anarchist ideas. There's pretty much no way to ensure people do not have some sort of conflict, that could eventually escalate into armed gangs. In a way it would be like making a mistake on human nature in much the same way as Marx did.

Somalia might not be the best example, since there are preexisting conflicts present, but I think that it would be hard to imagine a realistic society where people do not have disagreements that require government (of some sort) mediation.
People will have conflicts, large or small. And without an arbitrator that people trust and respect - and that can enforce rulings - there will be chaos.

I did that thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450280&highlight=Somali) three years ago. ;)

Don't worry, it'll be deleted soon anyway :tongue:

A lot of people point to the tribes of pre-history, or very isolated societies in the current era who lives in similar conditions to those times, as examples of self-governing village level communes. And these work OK, provided that there is plenty of space and adequate natural resources for all these communities to live without constantly tripping over one another. In much of the world, this is not possible, certainly not anywhere in Europe, the Mid-East/North Africa, and the most of Asia. When there isn't enough to go round (as is the case in every modern city of any significant size) you will naturally get gang/tribe warfare, which is exactly what happened in Mogadishu.

It is also OK provided one i happy to accept the idea of ostracism. Most of these societies work/worked by simply excluding those deemed undesirable, and work/worked on a system of peer pressure and might-is-right. Essentially it was the same as playground politics. Amish communities are an example of this.

I agree the main reason that there are problems today is the fact that there is not enough resources to go around.

Deport all libertarians to Mogadishu. It would be worth it just to see the look on the faces of all the rich-boy libertarian intellectuals.

Ostracism is strictly a small-numbers or short-term solution. Once you have sufficient numbers of ostracised, suddenly you have no ostracised - you have another faction, whether organized or not.

A single faction can form an anarchic or communistic society, provided the members of that society agree to put the good of the society above personal desire. But with no method of third party enforced arbitration, and no method of dispute resolution, once you have multiple factions appearing with differing agendas, or even identical agendas with different modus, that society has no method by which to reoorient itself - and it fails.

I agree the main reason that there are problems today is the fact that there is not enough resources to go around.

Last I check modern western society have far more resources than pre history. While one have barely enough to eat the other have cable TV. In the end, I think we need to ask ourselves "what exactly is enough resources for human beings"?

Not enough is a subjective thing, and as far as I can tell having enough for basic survival has never stop people from wanting more.

Ostracism is strictly a small-numbers or short-term solution. Once you have sufficient numbers of ostracised, suddenly you have no ostracised - you have another faction, whether organized or not.

A single faction can form an anarchic or communistic society, provided the members of that society agree to put the good of the society above personal desire. But with no method of third party enforced arbitration, and no method of dispute resolution, once you have multiple factions appearing with differing agendas, or even identical agendas with different modus, that society has no method by which to reoorient itself - and it fails.
The idea with those kind of experiments is that at best they can only be 'anarchistic' in their internal relationships, not their external ones. They would be dependent on the outside 'state' for food, funds etc to fund their little experiment, and furthermore they would never be recognized by the outside world as anything independent from the country they reside in.

And as is usually the case, external relationships poison internal ones.

So what went wrong? Is the existence of such armed thugs willing to go by "might makes right" a flaw in anarchist ideology, or simply a peculiarity that can be avoided? If so, how?They are a peculiarity that can be avoided by preparing for the anarchist system before the state collapses, or better yet, dissolving the state and it not collapsing at all.

Ostracism is strictly a small-numbers or short-term solution. Once you have sufficient numbers of ostracised, suddenly you have no ostracised - you have another faction, whether organized or not.

A single faction can form an anarchic or communistic society, provided the members of that society agree to put the good of the society above personal desire. But with no method of third party enforced arbitration, and no method of dispute resolution, once you have multiple factions appearing with differing agendas, or even identical agendas with different modus, that society has no method by which to reoorient itself - and it fails.The existence of the other factions can conceivably serve as arbitrators if there is a social contract between the factions, which there is likely to be to avoid disputes.

Most anarchists I have spoken to propose such complex methods of self regulation and distribution that there forms no significant difference between this and a state with a central administrative body.

Most anarchists I have spoken to propose such complex methods of self regulation and distribution that there forms no significant difference between this and a state with a central administrative body.

Oh yes your correct, most anarchists instantly loose their spine when confronted with the reality of what they propose, I mean is an anarchist is no longer promoting getting rid of the state then what are they? They seem to become nothing but conservatives to me, and for all intents and purposes they are no different.

Oh yes your correct, most anarchists instantly loose their spine when confronted with the reality of what they propose, I mean is an anarchist is no longer promoting getting rid of the state then what are they? They seem to become nothing but conservatives to me, and for all intents and purposes they are no different.

As a communist, aren't you supposed to also support the destruction or eventual dissolution of the state as well?

Most anarchists I have spoken to propose such complex methods of self regulation and distribution that there forms no significant difference between this and a state with a central administrative body.What differentiates a state from other types of organization is that a state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. An organization without such a monopoly could resemble the state in some ways, but it would require a large difference in the way other things are done.

Oh yes your correct, most anarchists instantly loose their spine when confronted with the reality of what they propose, I mean is an anarchist is no longer promoting getting rid of the state then what are they? They seem to become nothing but conservatives to me, and for all intents and purposes they are no different.There aren't anarchists who don't propose getting rid of the state; you are bringing up a strawman.

As a communist, aren't you supposed to also support the destruction or eventual dissolution of the state as well?

Yeah, but I don't want to throw the baby out of the bathwater, all the anarchists propose is a 1 step guide to a bunch of rich thugs taking over society. Communization of the social product must be done in installments, so you can change attitudes over time.

What differentiates a state from other types of organization is that a state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. An organization without such a monopoly could resemble the state in some ways, but it would require a large difference in the way other things are done.


But you seem to propose a coalition/social contract between different factions. This coalition would form a monopoly.

Yeah, but I don't want to throw the baby out of the bathwater, all the anarchists propose is a 1 step guide to a bunch of rich thugs taking over society. Communization of the social product must be done in installments, so you can change attitudes over time.

So it's not anarchy you hate, but people who propose an immediate transition to anarchy, right?

So it's not anarchy you hate, but people who propose an immediate transition to anarchy, right?
Well it depends on definitions I spose, the 'state' can only disappear when class distinctions disappear, so without a period in which these distinctions can be attacked then the state can never be done away with.

Here's an example, the USSR at 1937 managed to communize bread in Moscow, and more importantly they didn't have people cleaning out the bakeries and taking all the bread.

Stalin took the view that communism was something to be introduced by installments, not over night, not all at once in every field but gradually so that once production in a particular commodity became sufficient so this particular article could be communized, and at that time in Moscow I was informed that bread was now free. You could go into a shop and help yourself. And It worked. After all, you didn't, in most parts of the country, pay for your water by the gallon, it doesn't mean you turn your tap on deliberately just to get something for nothing. People don't, and I think its only a small step to changing peoples attitudes to realize that there is no point in taking more than you want.

-snip-

So you disagree with Lenin, who supported an immediate transition from tsarist society to communism, bypassing the bourgeois revolution?

As a communist, aren't you supposed to also support the destruction or eventual dissolution of the state as well?

The communist model of dissolving the state have proven to fail at so many levels that, to still believe it will work is deliberately shutting your eyes from reality.

What I do like to know is how anarchism lead to freedom as some claim, when in reality to keep a such a community intact will require more restrictions and mutual agreements than when being at a state. Settling disputes is an even bigger problem because when it comes down to it, there's nothing to stop one group from killing another once conflicts broke out. It is probably why every group, even at ancient times, have some form of leader/hierarchal system.

So you disagree with Lenin, who supported an immediate transition from tsarist society to communism, bypassing the bourgeois revolution?
WTF

The bourgeois revolution was February, the socialist revolution was October, and even so capitalism was partially developed in Russia even under the Tsar, the working class was growing at a very fast rate. The NEP was meant to straighten-up the distortions of production which existed in Russia, in which the country-side was still largely feudal but the cities industrialized. The main way Lenin did this was by linking the country to the towns via electrification.

Socialism is when the state seizes products and distributes them but with restrictions to prevent hording, looting etc, rationing etc.

Communism is when the state rolls back partially or entirely these restrictions so the commodity in question can be 'communized' (freely distributed to the public without restriction.

Now their is massive overlap in phases of production, just as feudalism and capitalism overlaps for over a 100 years in Europe before capitalism triumphed wholly, the same is so of the transition from socialism to communism. For example as capitalism developed in Europe it was a product-by-product that feudalism died out, and that division of labor in each feudal guild was replaced by division of labor in each single workshop.

A lot of people point to the tribes of pre-history, or very isolated societies in the current era who lives in similar conditions to those times, as examples of self-governing village level communes. And these work OK, provided that there is plenty of space and adequate natural resources for all these communities to live without constantly tripping over one another. In much of the world, this is not possible, certainly not anywhere in Europe, the Mid-East/North Africa, and the most of Asia. When there isn't enough to go round (as is the case in every modern city of any significant size) you will naturally get gang/tribe warfare, which is exactly what happened in Mogadishu.

It is also OK provided one i happy to accept the idea of ostracism. Most of these societies work/worked by simply excluding those deemed undesirable, and work/worked on a system of peer pressure and might-is-right. Essentially it was the same as playground politics. Amish communities are an example of this.

Looking at the near anarchic tribal cultures, which are very rare to begin with, it's my understanding that only a very few in Southern Africa approached a real non-hirarchical society, and that there were historical reasons for their doing so.

Deport all libertarians to Mogadishu. It would be worth it just to see the look on the faces of all the rich-boy libertarian intellectuals.

There's a good counterpart to the DK's "Holiday in Cambodia" in that...

Ostracism is strictly a small-numbers or short-term solution. Once you have sufficient numbers of ostracised, suddenly you have no ostracised - you have another faction, whether organized or not.

A single faction can form an anarchic or communistic society, provided the members of that society agree to put the good of the society above personal desire. But with no method of third party enforced arbitration, and no method of dispute resolution, once you have multiple factions appearing with differing agendas, or even identical agendas with different modus, that society has no method by which to reoorient itself - and it fails.

Indeed. There's also the problem of technology. Advanced technologies and industrial production systems don't seem to be suited to Anarchic/non-heirarchical systems.

WTF

The bourgeois revolution was February, the socialist revolution was October

Yes, but even before February, Lenin proposed to bypass the capitalist stage in Russia since it was a lesser developed country where it were most likely to be successful at this time and in order to encourage revolution throughout Europe. This is what differentiated the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks, who supported a more long term approach and wanting to form a coalition with the middle classes until Russia had developed sufficiently.


and even so capitalism was partially developed in Russia even under the Tsar, the working class was growing at a very fast rate.

But power was still in the hands of the aristocracy.

In a way it would be like making a mistake on human nature in much the same way as Marx did..

I still do not understand the source of this "Marx misunderstood human nature" idea. I think that perhaps the ones who epouse it do not fully understand Marxist theory.

The bourgeois revolution was February, the socialist revolution was October…

Except that they weren't really, because the Julian calendar is MADE OF PHAIL.

There was however at least one country a while ago in which the government disappeared: Somalia. When their government collapsed and various factions failed to win control and form a new one, Mogadishu was left outside and had no state for years.
No state, sure, but no co-operation, organisation or governance either.

The difference, in common parlance, between anarchy and Anarchy.


Here's an example, the USSR at 1937 managed to communize bread in Moscow, and more importantly they didn't have people cleaning out the bakeries and taking all the bread.
And in large amounts of Catalonia during much of the Spanish Civil War, collectively run anarchist communes worked successfully, in both city and countryside.

But these single-case issues don't prove much.

People will have conflicts, large or small. And without an arbitrator that people trust and respect - and that can enforce rulings - there will be chaos.

more or less my point yes.

I still do not understand the source of this "Marx misunderstood human nature" idea. I think that perhaps the ones who epouse it do not fully understand Marxist theory.

Basically that people are naturally power hungry and selfish, and to assume that everyone will keep working despite there being no requirement to do so, is illogical.

Basically that people are naturally power hungry and selfish...
To clarify, are you stating the above to be the case?

For if you are, I'd say that's as bad a misunderstanding of 'human nature' as believing humans are 'naturally' loving and selfless.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, both Hobbes and Rousseau have got it wrong.

Basically that people are naturally power hungry and selfish, and to assume that everyone will keep working despite there being no requirement to do so, is illogical.

Well, that certainly doesn't follow from Communism. This here ain't no welfare state, boyo.

Indeed. There's also the problem of technology. Advanced technologies and industrial production systems don't seem to be suited to Anarchic/non-hierarchical systems.

And indeed with any large scale structure. Once there isn't enough for everyone to help themselves to what they want, or when people start living cheek by jowl, you have to put order in place of anarchy to avoid people bludgeoning each other to death with dead cats.

Modern technology adds to this as whilst in low tech societies most people could make the things they needed themselves, or by co-operating amongst the village population, this isn't possible today. IN Mogadishu, the warlords charge taxes to use the roads, but they didn't build them to begin with, nor properly maintain them. If traffic on them becomes too heavy, no one is going to be able to upgrade those roads.

Ostracism is strictly a small-numbers or short-term solution. Once you have sufficient numbers of ostracised, suddenly you have no ostracised - you have another faction, whether organized or not.

A single faction can form an anarchic or communistic society, provided the members of that society agree to put the good of the society above personal desire. But with no method of third party enforced arbitration, and no method of dispute resolution, once you have multiple factions appearing with differing agendas, or even identical agendas with different modus, that society has no method by which to reoorient itself - and it fails.

I agree, I wasn't trying to say it's a workable solution, rather the opposite.

There's also the problem of technology. Advanced technologies and industrial production systems don't seem to be suited to Anarchic/non-heirarchical systems.
If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend a read of Murray Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GCxPs9EIYZkC&dq=post-scarcity+anarchism&pg=PP1&ots=I6UyFLPWv7&sig=IctXKHkwOTeVkp8pA4K_Rj1gctk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1), which attempts to deal with many of these problems.

To clarify, are you stating the above to be the case?

For if you are, I'd say that's as bad a misunderstanding of 'human nature' as believing humans are 'naturally' loving and selfless.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, both Hobbes and Rousseau have got it wrong.

well there is certainly a spectrum of people, not everyone is selfish, however, there are probably both genetic and societal influences that can be linked to such behaviors, and I doubt it'd be possible to completely remove the tendency to towards the two traits. I didn't mean it in a people are always or predetermined to act in such a manner, but that there will always be some cases of it.


Well, that certainly doesn't follow from Communism. This here ain't no welfare state, boyo.

"They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any need to." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Marxism)

I guess this is sort of the idea I'm referring to, that such a state would never occur where people have no desire to exploit others. It seems that most communists also believe in letting people do what ever work that they want, and that everyone's needs are met regardless of ability. That basically is a welfare state.

But you seem to propose a coalition/social contract between different factions. This coalition would form a monopoly.Not necessarily; the coalition is not meant to deal with violence, but more to deal with inter-community relations as well as arbitration.

What I do like to know is how anarchism lead to freedom as some claim, when in reality to keep a such a community intact will require more restrictions and mutual agreements than when being at a state.The extension of mutual agreements is itself an increase in freedom.

Settling disputes is an even bigger problem because when it comes down to it, there's nothing to stop one group from killing another once conflicts broke out.There's little reason to suppose the community wouldn't have a militia to help establish mutual defense.

Not necessarily; the coalition is not meant to deal with violence, but more to deal with inter-community relations as well as arbitration.


Does the coalition aim to stop violence and other such disorders? If not then what does? If it does then it is essentially dealing with violence, you can't stop it without use of force.

Modern technology adds to this as whilst in low tech societies most people could make the things they needed themselves, or by co-operating amongst the village population, this isn't possible today. IN Mogadishu, the warlords charge taxes to use the roads, but they didn't build them to begin with, nor properly maintain them. If traffic on them becomes too heavy, no one is going to be able to upgrade those roads.

Keep in mind that Somalia had, I don't know anymore after all that brouhaha between the warlods/TFG and ICC (Islamic Courts Council....not the other one), the one of the most advanced communications infrastructure in Africa. In large part this was a result of the endeavoring of private traders and interests. It's an interesting note, but does show that high technology isn't impossible in an anarchic setting. Then again, I wouldn't really call Somalia or Mogadishu anarchist....they were left in chaos, yes, but there are few, if any, anarchists that will tell that that is what anarchism is, I feel.

So what went wrong? Is the existence of such armed thugs willing to go by "might makes right" a flaw in anarchist ideology, or simply a peculiarity that can be avoided? If so, how?

it isn't really 'might makes right' so much as 'might does whatever the fuck it wants'. the trick is, as always, to have both right and might.

Even highly-devolved societies have some form of government. Families have government. Anarchism is impossible and would be the destruction of humanity, which is probably what anarchists want.

If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend a read of Murray Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GCxPs9EIYZkC&dq=post-scarcity+anarchism&pg=PP1&ots=I6UyFLPWv7&sig=IctXKHkwOTeVkp8pA4K_Rj1gctk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1), which attempts to deal with many of these problems.

Thanks for the link. Haven't read that text, but yeah, post-scarcity, if and when we get there, will be the real Third Wave, as opposed to Toffler's post-modern industrial information age. With post-scarcity tech I can see anarchy, or at least minarchy, having a real shot for a change.

ya know, when arachists talk about wanting an anarchy i dont think they mean destroying the social/governmental fabric of a society until chaos reigns.

i think they mean that they want an anarchy that is full of anarchists--people who have an understanding of what the political philosophy of anarchy means and how it might work.

The only purpose that REAL anarchy (as in no social order) could serve is that it would allow people to weed each other out (strong survive) and pave the way for new , smaller, governments (might rising to power most likely).

http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/1126/images/5.cocacola-welcome.jpg

In another thread, a significant people voted that they'd prefer anarchy to a strong central government. Many here align with anarchist or at least very libertarian ideologies.

The problem with those is that they haven't often been put into practice. Governments don't want to give up power, and electorates rarely vote for really drastic changes to the status quo. There was however at least one country a while ago in which the government disappeared: Somalia. When their government collapsed and various factions failed to win control and form a new one, Mogadishu was left outside and had no state for years.

But that wasn't particularly nice. Armed gangs, thugs and militias carved up the city, stole whatever they could and occasionally fired mortars at each other's suburbs, killing civilians in the process.

So what went wrong? Is the existence of such armed thugs willing to go by "might makes right" a flaw in anarchist ideology, or simply a peculiarity that can be avoided? If so, how?

Aye, but Mogadishu is a case of anarchy, not of Anarchism. I think it would be a more relevant discussion if we referred to 1936 Catalonia, or 1968 Paris, if we wanted to dissect the issues with Anarchism.

ya know, when arachists talk about wanting an anarchy i dont think they mean destroying the social/governmental fabric of a society until chaos reigns.

i think they mean that they want an anarchy that is full of anarchists--people who have an understanding of what the political philosophy of anarchy means and how it might work.

Ya know, ya'll may have something there.

At least my criticisms are, as far as I see, based on an understanding of what "big A" Anarchist are looking at.

Ya know, ya'll may have something there.

At least my criticisms are, as far as I see, based on an understanding of what "big A" Anarchist are looking at.
well yeah. there is no sense talking about somalia when what somalia is is a collapsed central government with various strongmen vying to be the new strong central government. no one there is working toward the cooperation and fair play that is necessary to an anarchy.

Advanced technologies and industrial production systems don't seem to be suited to Anarchic/non-heirarchical systems.

well, that depends. it almost certainly is the case that we can't have everyone involved in every decision regarding the running of some factory or, even worse, an entire geographical region. shit, free people wouldn't want that for themselves - imagine the meetings! but this doesn't condemn us to needing hierarchies of bosses with the bulk of people having no power and the few having all of it - no more than modernity has condemned us to being ruled by god-kings.

flatten as much as we reasonably can, and then invert the remaining hierarchy so that those we currently think of as at the 'top' are just the accountable delegates of those we think of at the 'bottom' ('accountability' here meaning something much deeper and more real than the shadow of it seen in democracies these days).

rather superficial, but it gets the general thrust across i think.

well, that depends. it almost certainly is the case that we can't have everyone involved in every decision regarding the running of some factory or, even worse, an entire geographical region. shit, free people wouldn't want that for themselves - imagine the meetings! but this doesn't condemn us to needing hierarchies of bosses with the bulk of people having no power and the few having all of it - no more than modernity has condemned us to being ruled by god-kings.

flatten as much as we reasonably can, and then invert the remaining hierarchy so that those we currently think of as at the 'top' are just the accountable delegates of those we think of at the 'bottom' ('accountability' here meaning something much deeper and more real than the shadow of it seen in democracies these days).

rather superficial, but it gets the general thrust across i think.

Could/should have worded that better.

Also, as I alluded to above, I do see potental in post-scarcity.

Just as the ag revolution ushered in feudalism, and industrialism ushered in oligarchy and plutacrchy, the real 3rd Wave should usher in new forms. Non/less-hierarchical systems of organization will be possible.

ya know, when arachists talk about wanting an anarchy i dont think they mean destroying the social/governmental fabric of a society until chaos reigns.

i think they mean that they want an anarchy that is full of anarchists--people who have an understanding of what the political philosophy of anarchy means and how it might work.

True. And same with communism too. They don't want a minority dictatorship lording over a slave race comprised of non-communists hostile to communism. They want everyone in the world to acknowledge their political ideology, to say, "You were RIGHT and I believe in what you believe now!"

True. And same with communism too. They don't want a minority dictatorship lording over a slave race comprised of non-communists hostile to communism. They want everyone in the world to acknowledge their political ideology, to say, "You were RIGHT and I believe in what you believe now!"
well now as true as that may be, at least when someone points to failed communism, its a country that proudly claimed to be communist.

somalia makes no such claim about anarchy.

After reading this entire thread so far I just have one question:

If anybody here is anarchist (whatever version of it you espouse I don't care about) can you please tell me what is wrong with the Somalian model and how you would change it?

Example: I'm some version of socialist (it tends to change on a daily basis what term to call me by) and I can give you a lot of reasons why I oppose the USSR and other communist states of that ilk. I'm not going to because that's not the point of the thread. However it can be done, therefore can someone please do it for me.

well now as true as that may be, at least when someone points to failed communism, its a country that proudly claimed to be communist.


No country has ever claimed to be communist.

After reading this entire thread so far I just have one question:

If anybody here is anarchist (whatever version of it you espouse I don't care about) can you please tell me what is wrong with the Somalian model and how you would change it?

Example: I'm some version of socialist (it tends to change on a daily basis what term to call me by) and I can give you a lot of reasons why I oppose the USSR and other communist states of that ilk. I'm not going to because that's not the point of the thread. However it can be done, therefore can someone please do it for me.

Somalia isn't a model of Anarchism.

I'm not an anarchist, but the reason why Somalia is anarchy not Anarchism is because it does not have a civil society.

See, Anarchism wants to do away with the State, but keeps Civil Society. Whereas in anarchy, both go, typically with Civil Society soon before the State, and causing the latter's disintegration.

After reading this entire thread so far I just have one question:

If anybody here is anarchist (whatever version of it you espouse I don't care about) can you please tell me what is wrong with the Somalian model and how you would change it?

Example: I'm some version of socialist (it tends to change on a daily basis what term to call me by) and I can give you a lot of reasons why I oppose the USSR and other communist states of that ilk. I'm not going to because that's not the point of the thread. However it can be done, therefore can someone please do it for me.

What the....People, there is no Somalian model of Anarchism. Somalia is a country that found itself in the unfortunate state of falling into political dissolution, not intentionally but most definitely happening.

The warlords gained power and then the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) was attempted by the international community and Somalia to bring about some semblance of order. In the meantime, many Somalis went about their daily existence just doing what people do, living. It developed a fairly impressive communications infrastructure because such was necessitated by internal and external business interests. Then along came the Islamic Courts Council (ICC) that rallied a whole lot of popular support because, regardless of its literalistic Shari'a interpretation, it provided a great deal of stability that the TFG and associated warlords were either unable or unwilling to provide. Then began a good deal of conflict, Ethiopia got involved with the TFG which actually escalated the conflict quite a bit (and it's a testament to the prevalence of ignorance that the US actually supported Ethiopian involvement here). I think the last I paid attention, the ICC had been pushed back to Mogadishu's airport and was holding off the TFG and that was the better part of a year ago.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, don't look at Somalia as anything other than a lesson in political devolution, because that is what it is. It's a horribly unfortunate case, but it is in no way an example of any applied ideology other than horrible political mismanagement (and I'm not only talking about Somali mismanagement, here).

Deport all libertarians to Mogadishu. It would be worth it just to see the look on the faces of all the rich-boy libertarian intellectuals.
*sigh* I think you're having difficulties with the English Language again...
Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government
lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n)
n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

In response to the OP:

I'd rather had Somalia(Anarchy) then 1984(All powerful state). For me, 'nuff said.

Thanks for the link. Haven't read that text, but yeah, post-scarcity, if and when we get there, will be the real Third Wave, as opposed to Toffler's post-modern industrial information age. With post-scarcity tech I can see anarchy, or at least minarchy, having a real shot for a change.
Same here, Bookchin's work is a real inspiration to myself; it rings home.

Also, I sent you a TG.

Libertarianism is just anarchism for rich people.

http://www.rumorsdaily.com/brd/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.GIF

Libertarianism is just anarchism for rich people.
Except not all libertarians are rich people, and not all anarchists are punks.

And neither necessarily believes in the complete dissolution of government.

Does the coalition aim to stop violence and other such disorders? If not then what does? If it does then it is essentially dealing with violence, you can't stop it without use of force.Most likely not, it would be more to deal with inter-community disputes, such as where communal borders are.

Even highly-devolved societies have some form of government. Families have government.This is true, which is why I made a point of making a distinction between "government" and "state". Anarchists oppose the state, but government is fine, for precisely the reasons you mention.

ya know, when arachists talk about wanting an anarchy i dont think they mean destroying the social/governmental fabric of a society until chaos reigns.

i think they mean that they want an anarchy that is full of anarchists--people who have an understanding of what the political philosophy of anarchy means and how it might work.Indeed, well said.

Here's an example, the USSR at 1937 managed to communize bread in Moscow, and more importantly they didn't have people cleaning out the bakeries and taking all the bread.

Stalin took the view that communism was something to be introduced by installments, not over night, not all at once in every field but gradually so that once production in a particular commodity became sufficient so this particular article could be communized, and at that time in Moscow I was informed that bread was now free. You could go into a shop and help yourself. And It worked. After all, you didn't, in most parts of the country, pay for your water by the gallon, it doesn't mean you turn your tap on deliberately just to get something for nothing. People don't, and I think its only a small step to changing peoples attitudes to realize that there is no point in taking more than you want.

In order to remember such details from nineteen thirty seven you would have to be REALLY effing old bro.

For a octagenarian you sure can use the computer well, and have a great memory... well not that great, you forgot what happened in 1991, when the USSR was dissolved after having an economic implosion.

In order to remember such details from nineteen thirty seven you would have to be REALLY effing old bro.

Andaras conveniently neglected to mention that he was again plagiarizing (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/compass/compass/comjun01.html).

Andaras conveniently neglected to mention that he was again plagiarizing (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/compass/compass/comjun01.html).

Haha, nice catch.

Andaras, get your own ideas, plagiarizing just makes you look stupider that you already are.

Ok let me explain myself from earlier (I'm O Ale Ale).

What I meant is what would you do differently from Somalia? How is what is happening in Somalia not true anarchism?

From an anarchist perspective what is wrong with Somalia?

And by the way Somalian model is just an easy way of saying that.

Ok let me explain myself from earlier (I'm O Ale Ale).

What I meant is what would you do differently from Somalia? How is what is happening in Somalia not true anarchism?

From an anarchist perspective what is wrong with Somalia?

And by the way Somalian model is just an easy way of saying that.
somalia is strongmen trying to create a strong central government but not having the resources to get it done. after one of them finally succeeds he will establish a central government and be the dictator of that government.

that is not anarchy in any way. its civil war.

See, Anarchism wants to do away with the State, but keeps Civil Society. Whereas in anarchy, both go, typically with Civil Society soon before the State, and causing the latter's disintegration.

But Civil society is directly based upon the stability of the Government, and by extension, the state.

The problem with anarchy is that one armed man who just wants to be left alone to live his life is no match for ten armed men who want to kill him and take his stuff.

But hey, no system is perfect, right?

The problem with anarchy is that one armed man who just wants to be left alone to live his life is no match for ten armed men who want to kill him and take his stuff.

But hey, no system is perfect, right?
it would seem to take years of education and strong social controls to keep that from happening.

oh and some kind of police force to deal with it when it does.

oh and some kind of court system to decide when it has to be dealt with

oh and some kind of laws to regulate just what needs to be dealt with

pretty soon you have a government.

From an anarchist perspective what is wrong with Somalia?

too many rulers, too few rules

But Civil society is directly based upon the stability of the Government, and by extension, the state.

we do not grant that extension; you'll have to argue for it

I suppose my question wasn't so much whether Somalia is an anarchist dream, it obviously isn't - but what you would assume to prevent something like it from happening.

It's nice to talk about the difference between the state, government and governance, but it's all a bit theoretical. It seems to me like anarchism requires commitment by everyone involved to follow a moral code that outlaws initiating violence and using coercion, and a willingness to refrain from it even if the community decides not to want anything to do with you anymore.

Mogadishu doesn't have these things, and I'd be willing to bet that there are few places in the real world where you would find a community large enough to really get things going without armed thugs. And as a result, implementation is very tricky at best.

So, given the current level of moral education of the everyday man...would you prefer anarchism to the government as it exists right now?

we do not grant that extension; you'll have to argue for it

Have you any example of stable, prospering Civil societies, that are not based on stable Government?

You're the one claiming they're different, so prove it; show me a fully functioning Anarchy, time frame doesn't matter, but you have to prove that they had no such government, at all.

Have you any example of stable, prospering Civil societies, that are not based on stable Government?


Germany, 1920's-1930's.

The Weimar Republic was highly unstable (though, not Somali unstable, more like Italy unstable), yet civil society was flourishing. So much that it was used by a small start up party to become one of the major players in the 30's.

Stepping back from the chaos of anarchy, what about a little anarchy? Minarchism (I'm sure there is a wiki for it...) seems like an almost ideal form of government for me, the government takes care of taking care of the country, the citizens take care of themselves, and there isnt a whole lot of interference with each other. I certainly don't like seeing the tax collectors but a small bit for helping the people isn't so bad. Then again a totally elitist society ran by the brightest and toughest wouldn't be so bad either...(as long as that counted as me =0)

Germany, 1920's-1930's.

The Weimar Republic was highly unstable (though, not Somali unstable, more like Italy unstable), yet civil society was flourishing. So much that it was used by a small start up party to become one of the major players in the 30's.

A 10 year period ending in one of the most brutal and monstrous dictatorship ever, isn't really helping your arguments for Anarchy. Plus, the Weimar Republic was relatively stable during the time frame you quote.

But Civil society is directly based upon the stability of the Government, and by extension, the state.

Non-sequitur. Civil Society is based on social structure, shared norms, values, economic principles and religion/religious toleration. The fact that Civil Society most often occurs within the state does not indicate that it can only occur within the state, and has the state as its cause. Nor does it always occur within the state.

Take the May Revolt (Paris '68). Yes there was a Central Committee, but it had no authority as such. What the people involved had, was a shared sense of identity, and a common culture. And thus agreed to work together. They accepted no state, but the Civil Society was much stronger for it, as to compensate.

Have you any example of stable, prospering Civil societies, that are not based on stable Government?

do you have any argument that the only sort of stable government possible is the state?