Is Somalia the only example of an anarchist society working with success? We're talking about a group of people who've known life without a government for thousands of years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
>Under Xeer, there is no authority that dictates what the law should be. The law is instead discovered by judges as they determine the best way to resolve a dispute. As such, the Somali nation by tradition is a stateless society; that is, Somalis have never accepted the authority of any central government, their own or any other
What the Greeks said about the ancient Somali "Berbers"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_(region)
>The document describes the Barbaroi's system of governance as decentralized, and essentially consisting of a collection of autonomous city-states. It also suggests that "the Berbers who live in the place are very unruly", an apparent reference to their independent streak.
>inb4 warlordism isn't anarchist
>success
>>1194394
Success in that it's the way they want to live.
>>1194377
Somalia is 7 states but one country and nation.
T. Somali
>>1194408
Fellow Somali here, this idea of one nation will never come to be. Everyone wants to be king.
>>1194412
It will. Hantileyda Ayo ganasidtata waxay doadan Ina la wuxayo sida canshurta igu gabita.
People will do anything for their pocket.
Polycentric law is common among tribal peoples.
The Pashtunwalai is like that.
>>1194442
Why don't Somalis want to unite, à la Germany or Italy?
>>1194458
My clan against my enemy, my brother against my clan.
They were nomadic warriors and herders, became merchants and sailor at least a few but the warrior spirit is still there
>>1194458
They had a country, and then gommies fucked it up so badly it ceased to exist.
>>1194458
Siad Barre tried that and turned the country into the shithole it is today.
>>1194516
>>1194490
>>1194474
What do you guys think of this as the borders of a future Somali nation-state?
>>1194724
Will.never.happen.
It's not anarchist it just has tribal power structures instead of the failed political ones. People still have leaders, just like they always will - anarchism is stupid.
>>1194827
This. They have a handful of political structures that sometimes fight and sometimes are at peace. That isn't anarchy. Just because we siphoned off an area and don't stop tribalists from being tribalists, it doesn't make it anarchy.
Anarchy doesn't even conceptually make sense. It's basically a teenage girl reinventing the wheel to make herself feel like she's accomplishing something.
>>1194394
it actually is. excluding al-shabaab shit works better than in most of africa. and many locals actually agree with them so i'm not sure is that even that bad thing. western values and "freedom" just doesn't suit everyone.
>>1194724
Well all that territory in Ethiopia is a desolate wasteland. And it'll never happen regardless. Not even the Somalis want to be a part of it (Djibouti voted against joining Somalia when they were decolonized and Somaliland's actively trying to secede), and all they got from trying to create Greater Somalia in the first place was a failed state and the creation of the terrorist groups that plague the region to this day.
>anything working
>in Somalia.
>>1194724
Eritea, Ethiopia and Somalia really should be a single state.
>>1195570
You mean "should be broken down to multiple ethnically homogeneous states", right?
>>1194377
>We're talking about a group of people who've known life without a government for thousands of years.
wat
There's been government in Somalia for at least 3000 years
>>1195603
Their Xeer law is the complete opposite of that.
>>1194377
OP is not aware of what the definition of anarchism is.
>>1195962
Then what is anarchy? Somalia fits in the Google definition fine.
Anarchism doesn't imply no state, obviously.
Anarchism =/= lack of government
Anarchism =/= political chaos
In reality, most anarchist writers proposed a highly organized state, more organized than most political systems. The main difference is that in this system, power isn't concentrated in any one group or person or branch of government. It is held equally among all peoples, and is truly democratic. In fact, it's more democratic than what most people think of democracy.
A truly anarchist society would have a complex system of voting and representation. The problem with that is most people don't seem to want to participate in the political process. A truly anarchist society would require each citizen to participate in some way. Voting would take up a lot of time and would involve many issues on local and larger regional levels.
Anarchy doesn't advocate no political organization, just lack of a hierarchical state in control of everything. To reiterate, anarchism may require more political organization, but also a lack of centralized power.
>>1195998
Humans are too stupid and too greedy for an effective real democracy. It's a fantasy.
Holy fuck balls, you'd have people with 70 IQ with just as much say in the future and security of the society as people with advanced degrees and classical military training. That sounds fucking stupid. Just shut up.
>>1194474
>They were nomadic warriors and herders
So were the Germs for 98,500 out of 100,000 years.
>My [house] against my enemy, my brother against my [house].
Yeah look at this mess, you're must be crazy if you think the >H >R >E will ever form a coherent entity.
>>1194724
>tfw Großsomalien
>>1196015
I'm just defining what anarchism means, I don't have an agenda. Or are you against the spread of commonly accepted knowledge?
I agree some kind of representation is necessary, honestly I think a republic similar to what the US and other countries have is a pretty good system. Every single person isn't going to participate, but everyone should have the ability to if they want, regardless of intelligence. That kind of talking is what leads us to authoritarian dictators. The best political system in my mind is one where free discourse is allowed, and ideally the system will produce the most fit representatives. Though I'm doubting this now seeing the success of Trump.
>>1194377
Somalia isn't anarchist, there's a lot of regional paramilitaries and pseudo-states running the place. The """""legitimate""""" government is just absolutely useless.
It's far from lawless, it's just there's too many people trying to asser their own law.
>>1196020
But you realize how complex and sophisticated the HRE governmental system was?
>>1194377
No but they haven't always been one country with one central government. Even as city-states, they still had some form of law that prevented people from doing whatever.
>>1196120
>It's far from lawless, it's just there's too many people trying to asser their own law.
Welcome to anarchy.
>>1194458
Unity is pretty fucked actually; it's a double edged sword. A powerful, unified state has Benefits:
>more international influence
>easier travel and trade
>possibility of a non shit standing army
But, being more centralized you get some toxic fucking consequences:
>increased possibility and ramifications of corruption
>elimination of effective political representation
>increased costs of administration directly related to size of the union
>militias disappear (for some reason)
And
>greater distance between citizen and representative abroad
In short, you sacrifice your ability to contribute to your society/live more or less independently for some other dickheads' power games. Fuck, tiny countries with decentralized power are badass. Ex.: the swiss can vote on individual laws, two cantons even have meetings where every citizen shows up and has their say.
Fuck you globalists, I'm going back to pol. Viva Vinezia
>>1196317
>This is what /pol/ ACTUALLY believes
>>1195584
That still won't work though.
Ethnic homogeneity isn't an instant solution retards here claim it is.
>>1196476
Honestly? If that is so /pol/ isn't so bad. Of course, there's the little problem of the hitler fetishism and holocaust denial and general shitposting, plus they brought the christfags here.
