Das Somalia Argument liest man öfter; und es ist totaler Quark. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob Warlords und deren Geldgeber einer Region den Stempfel Anarchie aufdrücken; oder ob man sich (in aufgeklärten Zeiten) bewusst und friedlich für eine solche Form des Zusammenlebens entscheidet (was nicht impliziert, dass Anarc. dann funktioniere kann)
@kimme – amüsant, von anarchie zu reden, wenn die expeditionsstreitkräfte auf dem territorium die zelte aufschlagen..
@dok – erst recht, wenn dir das centcom/jsoc im rahmen der nachbarschaftshilfe die task force 88/blackwater auf den hals hetzt..
First, no intelligent anarchist argues that the sudden and catastrophic implosion of the state will result in a peaceful, self-regulating society.
We’ve lived through centuries of the process which Pyotr Kropotkin described in “Mutual Aid” and “The State,” by which centralized territorial states suppressed bottom-up, self-organized alternatives, and caused civil society to atrophy. Under such circumstances, when the state suddenly disappears, the result is likely to be a power vacuum with nothing ready to take its place, and the proliferation of all sorts of social pathologies. What most of us want to do is reverse the centuries-long process Kropotkin described, by building alternative social institutions, organized on a voluntary cooperative basis, to supplant the state. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, conventionally regarded as the father of anarchism, described it as devolving or submerging the state in the social body. And this by no means implies the anarcho-capitalist vision of a society where all functions are performed by for-profit business firms. It could just as easily mean a society of worker and consumer cooperatives, common property, free clinics, community supported agriculture, intentional communities, urban communes and squats, and the kinds of mutual aid arrangement described by Kropotkin in “Mutual Aid” and E.P. Thompson in “The Making of the English Working Class.” So it would make far more sense to look at a stateless or near-stateless society that’s been that way for a long time, under comparatively stable conditions (like some of the near-stateless areas in Southeast Asia described by James Scott in “The Art of Not Being Governed”), and the institutions by which people peaceful govern their lives. Second, “Somalia” does not equal “Mogadishu.” Most of the horrific, Mad Max scenes captured in Somalia are in Mogadishu, where the central state was most powerful before the collapse and the institutions of civil society were accordingly most atrophied. As Roderick Long, director of C4SS’s parent body the Molinari Society, put it, “the farther one gets away from Mogadishu, the more one gets into relatively peaceful areas that have always been anarchic or close to it, barring occasional intrusions from the statebuilders in the city.” In other words, the further you get from Mogadishu, the less Somalia resembles “Somalia,” and the more it resembles the kind of stable society described by James Scott. Third, the proper comparison to Somalia is not the United States and similar societies in the West, but to the actual state that existed in Somalia before the collapse of central power. Given that comparison, things in Somalia aren’t that bad at all. For example: a study by Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh took “a comparative institutional approach to examine Somalia’s performance relative to other African countries both when Somalia had a government and during its extended period of anarchy.” And it found that Somalia, when subjected to an honest comparison — “between Somalia when it had a functioning government, and Somalia now” — is less poor, has higher life expectancy, and has experienced a drastic increase in telephone lines.
Ansonsten könnte man noch sagen, dass Anarchie durchaus ein fester Bestandteil einer jeden existierenden Gesellschaftsordnung ist. Sie ist z.B. momentan ein "Privileg" für die politische Klasse, welches sich u.a. in internationalen Beziehungen ausspielt ("Realismus"-Theorie), sich generell im politischen Miteinander zeigt (vgl. Cuzán, G. A., Do We Ever Really Get Out Of Anarchy?). Für mich weitaus wichtiger ist allerdings ihre Manifestation in Bubers "sozialem Prinzip" – all die spontanen sozialen Gemeinschaften, die sich um gemeinsame Bedürfnisse oder Interessen gebildet haben; Kooperative aller Art, Gruppen, Familien, Gewerkschaften. Hierzu gebe ich Colin Ward das letzte Wort:
[A]n anarchist society, a society which organises itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and its injustices, nationalism and its suicidal loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism. . . . [F]ar from being a speculative vision of a future society, it is a description of a
mode of human organisation, rooted in the experience of everyday life, which operates side by side with, and in spite of, the dominant authoritarian trends of our society. This is not a new version of anarchism. Gustav Landauer saw it, not as the founding of something new, ‘but as the actualisation and reconstitution of something that has always been present, which exists alongside the state, albeit buried and laid waste’. And a modern anarchist, Paul Goodman, declared that: ‘A free society cannot be the substitution of a “new order” for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of social life.’
…"Is Anarchy possible?"
Yes, it's called Somalia, Afghanistan and other failed countries.
Das Somalia Argument liest man öfter; und es ist totaler Quark. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob Warlords und deren Geldgeber einer Region den Stempfel Anarchie aufdrücken; oder ob man sich (in aufgeklärten Zeiten) bewusst und friedlich für eine solche Form des Zusammenlebens entscheidet (was nicht impliziert, dass Anarc. dann funktioniere kann)
@kimme – amüsant, von anarchie zu reden, wenn die expeditionsstreitkräfte auf dem territorium die zelte aufschlagen..
@dok – erst recht, wenn dir das centcom/jsoc im rahmen der nachbarschaftshilfe die task force 88/blackwater auf den hals hetzt..
Bzgl. Somalia halte ich die folgenden Studien für recht interessant:
Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement
Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse
Ansonsten sind die kurzen Beiträge des (großartigen) "Center for a Stateless Society" allesamt lesenswert. Um Kevin Carson zu zitieren:
First, no intelligent anarchist argues that the sudden and catastrophic implosion of the state will result in a peaceful, self-regulating society.
We’ve lived through centuries of the process which Pyotr Kropotkin described in “Mutual Aid” and “The State,” by which centralized territorial states suppressed bottom-up, self-organized alternatives, and caused civil society to atrophy. Under such circumstances, when the state suddenly disappears, the result is likely to be a power vacuum with nothing ready to take its place, and the proliferation of all sorts of social pathologies.
What most of us want to do is reverse the centuries-long process Kropotkin described, by building alternative social institutions, organized on a voluntary cooperative basis, to supplant the state. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, conventionally regarded as the father of anarchism, described it as devolving or submerging the state in the social body. And this by no means implies the anarcho-capitalist vision of a society where all functions are performed by for-profit business firms. It could just as easily mean a society of worker and consumer cooperatives, common property, free clinics, community supported agriculture, intentional communities, urban communes and squats, and the kinds of mutual aid arrangement described by Kropotkin in “Mutual Aid” and E.P. Thompson in “The Making of the English Working Class.”
So it would make far more sense to look at a stateless or near-stateless society that’s been that way for a long time, under comparatively stable conditions (like some of the near-stateless areas in Southeast Asia described by James Scott in “The Art of Not Being Governed”), and the institutions by which people peaceful govern their lives.
Second, “Somalia” does not equal “Mogadishu.” Most of the horrific, Mad Max scenes captured in Somalia are in Mogadishu, where the central state was most powerful before the collapse and the institutions of civil society were accordingly most atrophied. As Roderick Long, director of C4SS’s parent body the Molinari Society, put it, “the farther one gets away from Mogadishu, the more one gets into relatively peaceful areas that have always been anarchic or close to it, barring occasional intrusions from the statebuilders in the city.” In other words, the further you get from Mogadishu, the less Somalia resembles “Somalia,” and the more it resembles the kind of stable society described by James Scott.
Third, the proper comparison to Somalia is not the United States and similar societies in the West, but to the actual state that existed in Somalia before the collapse of central power. Given that comparison, things in Somalia aren’t that bad at all. For example: a study by Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh took “a comparative institutional approach to examine Somalia’s performance relative to other African countries both when Somalia had a government and during its extended period of anarchy.” And it found that Somalia, when subjected to an honest comparison — “between Somalia when it had a functioning government, and Somalia now” — is less poor, has higher life expectancy, and has experienced a drastic increase in telephone lines.
Ansonsten könnte man noch sagen, dass Anarchie durchaus ein fester Bestandteil einer jeden existierenden Gesellschaftsordnung ist. Sie ist z.B. momentan ein "Privileg" für die politische Klasse, welches sich u.a. in internationalen Beziehungen ausspielt ("Realismus"-Theorie), sich generell im politischen Miteinander zeigt (vgl. Cuzán, G. A., Do We Ever Really Get Out Of Anarchy?). Für mich weitaus wichtiger ist allerdings ihre Manifestation in Bubers "sozialem Prinzip" – all die spontanen sozialen Gemeinschaften, die sich um gemeinsame Bedürfnisse oder Interessen gebildet haben; Kooperative aller Art, Gruppen, Familien, Gewerkschaften. Hierzu gebe ich Colin Ward das letzte Wort:
[A]n anarchist society, a society which organises itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and its injustices, nationalism and its suicidal loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism.
. . . [F]ar from being a speculative vision of a future society, it is a description of a
mode of human organisation, rooted in the experience of everyday life, which operates side by side with, and in spite of, the dominant authoritarian trends of our society. This is not a new version of anarchism. Gustav Landauer saw it, not as the founding of something new, ‘but as the actualisation and reconstitution of something that has always been present, which exists alongside the state, albeit buried and laid waste’. And a modern anarchist, Paul Goodman, declared that: ‘A free society cannot be the substitution of a “new order” for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of social life.’