It may not be anarchism as professed by anarchists (which is itself a broad and fractious array of philosophies generally having to do with abolishing involuntary hierarchies, related to classical libertarianism), but it is a form of anarchy, at least as it is popularly understood. Terminology fails here; at this point any serious anarchists need to come to grips with the fact that this sort of "chaotic anarchy" is what people think of when they hear "anarchy", and that trying to reclaim the word is pointless.
1. I agree that anarchists probably need to grapple with the fact that people think of this as a first association...
2. ...but terminology does not at all fail here, there is a separate term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie which describes a breakdown in order and social function.
is a good example why anomie and anarchy probably _should_ be distinct concepts, as there's probably plenty of hierarchy, localized state power and centralized
decision making going on in Sudan, while e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Lib... appear to have done absolutely fine keeping and improving a social fabric for the last 30 yeras (until recently, gangs arrived and brought the anomie that comes with organized crime).
Again, I don't think it's a winning strategy for political anarchists to try and convince people that "acshually it's anomie, not anarchy", but I think on this page, peoples professed self-identity makes sharing out this separation of concept worth it
On the contrary, the article's use of the word is what is pointless.
At no point, besides the title, does the article make mention of anarchy or chaos. Rather, the article pretty clearly states that the famine is a result of a civil war between the government and a paramilitary group that was previously given weapons by the government.
Liberal politicians (and less commonly journalists) like to latch onto the words anarchy and chaos to fear monger and dramatize, but often the so-called anarchy and chaos they call out is a direct result of their own ruthless attempts to keep order.
Neither the article author, nor you, have shown that the situation here is caused by a lack of government. In fact the article explicitly states that an important agricultural region is governed by one of the warring factions.
That's because you're misunderstanding what "governed" means here. In the context of the article, it basically means that there are armed men there exercising control over the area, and that's it.
There is no actual governance of the land, agricultural exploitation or oversight, basic services, or anything else.
Just armed men plundering, which is not any actual government control, hence the anarchy there and all around the country. There is a power structure in some places, but only insofar as military control and plunder; everything else is left to its own devices, hence chaotic anarchy.
I assumed the nuance there would be nitpicked (as the thread proves) which is why I didn’t post this but I’m glad you did.
This famine is the expected result of 20 years of post-colonialist civil war, which the article goes on to explain lightly.
The economist is a capitalist magazine, so they of course are going to choose terms which resonate with capitalists.
The majority in this thread look at this situation as a failure of “valid liberal government” rather than the results of capitalist colonialism, which is what it is.
Colonialist resource extraction by Western powers, exemplified by companies like Chevron, exacerbated ethnic and regional tensions in Sudan and Darfur by prioritizing profits over local communities.
Specifically Chevron's involvement in Sudan's oil industry during the 1970s and 80s led to the displacement of populations and the allocation of resources to specific ethnic groups, heightening grievances and competition over land and wealth.
The infrastructure and political systems left by colonial powers were designed to facilitate such extraction, rather than fostering equitable development, creating a legacy of economic disparity and weak governance. This upended centuries of pastoral farming, and created conditions for this massive civil war, as marginalized groups rebelled against a state that was perceived as both complicit in and shaped by foreign exploitation.
"The blockade of Ukrainian ports by the Black Sea Fleet in the first weeks of the invasion interrupted grain exports, rapidly increasing global food prices and fueling food crises, greatly increasing the risk of famine in the poorest countries"
"the Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme, has estimated that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has pushed around 70 million people to the brink of starvation worldwide"
