Where Anarchy Rules

Somalia is the only country in the world that has no national governing body, the BBC reports yesterday. According to the article, it's been that way for thirteen years now. There are some amazing quotes in this piece:

"Somalia is a pure, free market."

"I am from Somalia and to live without government is the most dangerous system."

"I just want a government, any government will do."

"Somalia - where life expectancy is close to 48 years - has some of the world's worst health indicators. A quarter of children die before reaching the age of five. Women run a one-in-10 risk of dying as a consequence of giving birth." (From the "Facts and Figures" section).

Can we now finally write off the radical utopian dream of anarchism as a Hobbesian hoax? Is human nature truly nasty, brutish, and short without Big Brother looking out for us? Not according to this very nicely written Wikipedia explanation of anarchy. Here are some of the relevant passages:

"One common use of the English word anarchy is "a state of lawlessness or political disorder", otherwise known as anomie. This use of the word implies a broad definition: usually, any situation where there is no internationally recognized government is considered anarchy. The current political situation in Somalia, for example, is referred to as a state of anarchy using this definition, since it is in a state of chaos [1] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html#Govt).

However, in anarchist philosophies, anarchy means an "anarchist society", that is, a society where individuals are free from coercion. Few anarchists would point to Somalia as an example of "anarchy". They would argue that Somalia's warlord system is merely another face of despotism, characterized by brutal use of force by self-appointed rulers. Anarchists do not believe, as Jean-Francois Revel wrote in Democracy against Itself, that "... anarchy leads to despotism ... despotism leads to anarchy ..." [2] (http://www.modulaware.com/a/?m=select&id=0029263875).

In recent history there have been numerous instances of collapse of state authority, sometimes prompted by war but also often due to implosion of the state. In some cases, state collapse is followed by lawlessness, rioting, looting and, if disarray lasts long enough, warlordism; present-day Somalia is often cited as one example. Although such societies are often described as anarchy, they are not organised according to anarchist principles.

However, there are instances in which a society peacefully organizes itself without a government or other form of centralised power, along philosophical anarchist lines. A functioning anarchy would then be a society maintaining stability and civil society without hierarchies. There are some examples, usually small and/or short-lived (many were overrun by outside forces), which are considered successful anarchies in this sense.

Still skeptical? I am, too. But check out what's happening in Denmark:

Freetown Christiania is a quarter of Copenhagen that became independent and self-governing in the 1970s after an anarchist commune took over army barracks in the center of the city. While in theory governed by the laws of Denmark, it is left alone by the authorities. For a third of a century, this self-described social experiment has successfully resolved conflicts threatening its continued existence, arising both internally and from the Danish state.

And look what happened in Spain:

In 1936, against the background of the fight against fascism, was a profound libertarian revolution throughout Spain.
Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers.

The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," of course without the attached Marxist dogma. In some places, money was entirely eliminated. Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes).

In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. Oppressive traditions were done away with. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of "free love" became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.

And here's Hungary:

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 can be seen as an excellent example of a functioning anarchy, perhaps even of successful communism. From October 22 1956 Hungarian workers refused to obey their managers or their government. Claiming sovereignty for their own workers councils they organized economic, military and social production on an increasing scale. An example of the anarchic social organization was that vast sums of money were freely donated for injured revolutionary fighters; and that this money was left unattended in the street for days at a time. [Emphasis mine.] Peasants supplied the workers with food on a voluntary basis. Between October 22 and December 14 Hungary's economy and society was governed by the democratic opinion of workers councils and voluntary associations. These councils constantly increased in scope and depth, eventually forming a Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest (CWC-GB), with intellectual and student associations affiliated to the body. The attempts to form a national Workers Council were crushed by Soviet military violence.

The Wikipedia entry continues with many other heartening examples of succesful examples of anarchy, and I highly recommend them. And I say "heartening," because who wants to have to accept the idea that we are naturally an evil creature? Who wants to believe that there can be no possibility of human beings prospering freely together as equals? Not I.

Stay tuned for more discussion on the dangers and delights of human efforts at self governing . . .