Is Samalia proof that pure capitalism doesn’t work? Socialists often seem to bring it up in arguments, Thanks!
No. Society there has not fully embraced the idea of property rights.
^^one of many answers to such a simple question. Is there a specific argument that is made by “socialists” as to elaborate on there position you’d like to share?
How so?
Clayton -
I should have not given such a simplistic answer, even in response to such a simple question.
What I mean by that is that, for all the theft and other acts of aggression that occur there (supposedly; I mean, I did not witness this), they could only go on so long as they are tolerated by society. Although most people probably do believe in property rights, as well as rights to defend oneself or others from aggression, overtly, by their actions, they seem to tolerate it. It’s not that I can blame them for that. I have accepted taxation here thus far for, I’d suppose most likely, similar reasons (my aggressors have more force than I do). Just like if society here just decided one day to not accept taxation, or acts of aggression, or other ills thrust upon them by the state, but to instead embrace fully the ideals of liberty and property rights, the state would be effectively powerless, Somalians could to decide not to cooperate/tolerate aggressive agents that commit ills upon them.
So, like the idea that preferences aren’t revealed without action, I would assume (although, again, I don’t have firsthand knowledge of life is actually like in Somalia) that if the actions taken by society there is to, in general, tolerate/allow aggression to be thrust upon them, they prefer [living or not being injured; not having to defend themselves, their property, or their neighbors; coexisting with scoundrels] to the alternative of their action taken, being [death or injury; exercising the right to defend themselves, their property, and their neighbors from aggression; fully embracing the principles of property rights and rights to liberty].
Kind of like how someone that says “America is proof that truly free markets don’t and can’t work,” and I reply with “Without true respect for property rights, and rights to liberty for the individual, America doesn’t and hasn’t ever had a truly free market.” Yes, while principles of capitalism are always at work, when hindrances by the state or by scoundrels that do just what a recognized state does are a daily part of life, one cannot claim that capitalism or truly free markets has been legitimately tried.
Does that makes sense? I mean, obviously, as I said, without firsthand knowledge, I can’t truly say I know what’s going on in Somalia. My response relies on hearsay, like those who discuss the chaos and violence that occurs, and can easily be flawed.
Am I incorrect in saying, albeit in an oversimplified manner, that society hasn’t truly embraced absolute respect for property rights and liberty (the way most posters here, for example, have)?
EDIT: My apology for a double-post.
What does ‘not working’ even mean, anyway? What are the criteria for working or not working?
what does not working mean?
there is more proof that somalia is not capitalist than anything else.
perhaps there is proof that people don’t automaticly resort to capitalism and don’t automaticly respect property rights, we have that proof all over the world.
This is a good summary of how that region improved after their tyrannical government went away.
Relative to their Sub-saharan counterparts, Capitalism has indeed helped them.
@cab21 - how does that answer my question? The point of the debate has to be established before there can be any debate.
Somali culture does indeed respect property rights and the roots of its protections run so deep that more than a half century of colonialism administered by the experienced colonial hands of three governments (Italy, Britain and now the US… dishonorable mention: UN/AU) hasn’t managed to eradicate, or even seriously endanger - Somali culture regarding property rights, among other things. I recommend anyone who is interested in learning more Google “Michael van Notten” and start from there.
Clayton -
There are plenty of threads on here that cover the topic. Essentially, Somalia became better off after it went “stateless.” And it would be even better if international groups stopped trying to take it over.
Wheylous, let me get this straight - you are saying that if foreign powers, such as the US and the UN/NATO, were to stop promising guns to whichever gang can rule the Somali, that Somalia would be better off? That’s crazy talk!
For some reason I’m having hard time believing that the original poster is serious… C’mon, do you guys really think that socialists often refer to Somalia as a disproof of pure capitalism? Maybe they would use it as an example of anarchy not working; but do they think Somalia is capitalistic? Hell no! According to my own experience they usually point to United States as an example of pure capitalism not working - e.g. the Great Depression, the financial crisis of 2008, imperialistic tendencies, bad healthcare, evil republicans etc.
It seems that for laissezfaireism to work there is even more need for a “New Man” then for socialism. So much for spontainous order of the market, and how there would not be a bellum omnium contra omnes because it’s not profitable.
Marxists, Socialists, et al use Somalia as an argument against Anarcho-Capitalism. They claim that Somalia is the closest thing to an Anarcho-Capitalist society and that Anarcho-Capitalism will always result in disasters like Somalia, because Marxists et al believe that the state is fundamental for the existence of capitalism; the big bourgeoisie needs an institution of violence to maintain current relations of production, property rights, blah, blah, etc.
The particular person I had this conversation with was Europian, so I don’t think the great depresion, and financial chrisis of 2008 is as well known to them as it is to people living in the US.
This message is about something you might not remember anymore, but luckily writing messages to Mises forum doesn’t cost anything.
In your original message you used the term “pure capitalism”. How did you refer to the system of pure capitalism when you talked to this person? Did you talk about anarcho-capitalism or free market capitalism/pure capitalism? If you said the former, then I can understand pretty well his response; on the other hand, if you picked latter wording, I’m confused
Umm… what the hell happend there?
You mean you don’t know either?