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?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Society there has not fully embraced the idea of property rights.
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.
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.
Umm.... what the hell happend there?
You mean you don't know either?
I don't have any understanding of what happened. I just wrote the message and sent it - that's it.