Siad Barre-Mengistu meeting as told by Castro

[reer_ugaas_hussein]

Conversation in which Castro (Cuba) retells what happend in the meeting Mengistu-Barre to Honeckee (DDR) , the meeting was March 17 and this convo April 3 1977, both before the war:

Source: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter...-erich-honecker-and-cuban-leader-fidel-castro

 

[GemState]

How did these people look at Africans living like feudal peasants & think socialism was the answer? Totally insane.

 

[johnsepei5]

socialism or not the civil war was definitely gonna happen someday

How did these people look at Africans living like feudal peasants & think socialism was the answer? Totally insane.

 

[hippy60]

socialism or not the civil war was definitely gonna happen someday

None of these ism every helped African nations we need something new .

 

[johnsepei5]

None of these ism every helped African nations we need something new .

Who’s the African countries?

 

[kaahin13]

How did these people look at Africans living like feudal peasants & think socialism was the answer? Totally insane.

Are you telling me pastoralists and subsistence farmers won’t benefit from the overthrow of the bourgeoisie class?

 

[Hilmaam]

Siad Barre was with the shit kept it with that ugly Ethiopian midget

 

[Somali Saayid]

Thanks sxb this was really informative.

 

[The alchemist]

How did these people look at Africans living like feudal peasants & think socialism was the answer? Totally insane.

It reflects on the rigidity of the socialist systemic thinking, with no reflection on the heterogenic things on the ground and its situational geographic tailored realities.

 

[JackieBurkhart]

It reflects on the rigidity of the socialist systemic thinking, with no reflection on the heterogenic things on the ground and its situational geographic tailored realities.

Always high IQ comments.

 

[reer_ugaas_hussein]

It reflects on the rigidity of the socialist systemic thinking, with no reflection on the heterogenic things on the ground and its situational geographic tailored realities.

I only partially agree. Yes, while even most anti-colonial african socialist thinkers like Fanon remained paradoxically European in orientation, I think this has more to do with them pushed by the soviets in this direction and forced to tow the "soviet line" than the rigidity of socialism per se.

Soviet thinkers like Potekhin declared that there can be no socialism adapted to the african environment and that "african socialism" was reactionary ideology as the one true scientific socialism was marxism-leninism as established in the USSR, which funnily enough was itself is an adaption of Marx and Engels teachings to the russian environment.

By only supporting movements who followed their version and actively sabotaging all others they declared as "reactionary" they made it impossible for any african socialism tailored to the realities on the ground to emerge

 

[The alchemist]

I only partially agree. Yes, while even most anti-colonial african socialist thinkers like Fanon remained paradoxically European in orientation, I think this has more to do with them pushed by the soviets in this direction and forced to tow the "soviet line" than the rigidity of socialism per se.

Soviet thinkers like Potekhin declared that there can be no socialism adapted to the african environment and that "african socialism" was reactionary ideology as the one true scientific socialism was marxism-leninism as established in the USSR, which funnily enough was itself is an adaption of Marx and Engels teachings to the russian environment.

By only supporting movements who followed their version and actively sabotaging all others they declared as "reactionary" they made it impossible for any african socialism tailored to the realities on the ground to emerge

Socialism to some degree needs authoritative tendencies and strong social ideological commitment. So in that sense, there is no wonder why Socialists systems up to this point had those authoritative inclinations.

Sure, those Socialist systems were not "true" Socialism, as we often hear, but maybe Socialism has a human problem. Its assumptions about the conditions of our existence, individually and collectively, make it so that in practice, there is an inherent consequence of contradiction that disagrees with the theoretical works. This goes back to I think that Marxism is reductive and selective in its response and solutions. You can say it is a response-specific chained to a solution outcome, very reductive and filter-based from Capitalism. Very ideologically convenient but a problem in reality. In this way, there is an imperfect dualism of both of those systems that are interlinked, socialism stemming from Capitalism. One can actually say Marx was too Capitilistcally conditioned to think beyond the reductionist and selective incorrect view to actually form something much better, and tragic of all, trying to pass that off as a universalist predicament. For the last point, no wonder it prompts rigidity and in-flexibility, the center of this conversation.

Marxism in a way, just like capitalism, is another jaded philosophical materialist system, none of them agrees with the human spirit and none of them is as a single unit, a viable solution. The paradigm where there is this dualistic dominance and solution-based responsive ideological interaction is the biggest problem of all. Being locked in that paradigm is the limitation of true potential.

There are many other problems too that can be discussed some other time, but I disagree with you mostly. You are correct the Soviet Union is the manifestation of a systemic bureaucratic exaggeration but it was by no means the root of it; that can be traced back to the contradiction, limitations, and focus of the ink of the theory itself.

 

[reer_ugaas_hussein]

One can actually say Marx was too Capitalistically conditioned to think beyond the reductionist and selective incorrect view to actually form something much better, and tragic of all, trying to pass that off as a universalist predicament. For the last point, no wonder it prompts rigidity and in-flexibility, the center of this conversation.

you bring very good points, I do agree marx himself was obviously influenced by the world he lived in and couldn't think of one outside of this scope, his view on history for example (historical materialism) one thing that could for example based on european history he assumes a liberal capitalistic state will emerge in all nation following feudalism and which will be succeeded by his socialist utopia, he couldn't think of a world in liberal capitalistic state is not an end stage.

Socialism to some degree needs authoritative tendencies and strong social ideological commitment. So in that sense, there is no wonder why Socialists systems up to this point had those authoritative inclinations.

Sure, those Socialist systems were not "true" Socialism, as we often hear, but maybe Socialism has a human problem.

I'm not one of those socialist who call every failed socialist experiment "not real socialism" and don't subscribe to the ideology. I disagreed with you just on the point that socialism i sa rigid ideology that cannot adapt to different conditions. I would say Socialism is in fact just an umbrella term for many loosely related anti capitalist ideas and very flexible, the opposite of a rigid ideology with clear guidelines. The socialist never truly defines how his utiopia should look like, how to reach it and never brings forth a clear alternative but focuses solely on critique of the capitalist system.

This meant that in the end it was leaders like Mao, Ho chi Minh etc who defined socialism in their respective countries ( as a state ideology that legitimized their party and adapted to their countries culture and values ) and were able to establish authoritarian, but stable states. I think this may have happened in Africa too if these african socialist leaders were not as reliant on soviet aid or choose the socialist aesthetic to get soviet aid in the first place like barre.

 

[The alchemist]

you bring very good points, I do agree marx himself was obviously influenced by the world he lived in and couldn't think of one outside of this scope, his view on history for example (historical materialism) one thing that could for example based on european history he assumes a liberal capitalistic state will emerge in all nation following feudalism and which will be succeeded by his socialist utopia, he couldn't think of a world in liberal capitalistic state is not an end stage.


I'm not one of those socialist who call every failed socialist experiment "not real socialism" and don't subscribe to the ideology. I disagreed with you just on the point that socialism i sa rigid ideology that cannot adapt to different conditions. I would say Socialism is in fact just an umbrella term for many loosely related anti capitalist ideas and very flexible, the opposite of a rigid ideology with clear guidelines. The socialist never truly defines how his utiopia should look like, how to reach it and never brings forth a clear alternative but focuses solely on critique of the capitalist system.

This meant that in the end it was leaders like Mao, Ho chi Minh etc who defined socialism in their respective countries ( as a state ideology that legitimized their party and adapted to their countries culture and values ) and were able to establish authoritarian, but stable states. I think this may have happened in Africa too if these african socialist leaders were not as reliant on soviet aid or choose the socialist aesthetic to get soviet aid in the first place like barre.

I agree theory does not align with practice, but saying that the expectation on that theoretical, ideological proposition of such paradigm apparatus can never become entirely reconciled because it's suppositionally untenable and based on a faulty universalist claim of human affairs, to begin with. It's wrong in many places and doesn't revert to the "socialism wrong everywhere" low-hanging fruit.

One can make loosely related terms that struggle to align themselves with reality and call them flexible -- the foundational stress test comes from the application. Either way, what one chooses to do, if one is to make a comprehensive system, is to convert that to a socialist practical measure that more than often is centrally defined and centrally governed, a unipolarity of sorts morphs into a formalist shape. Constricted is it by certain anti-capitalistic principles that give them a rooted character no matter how malleable one claim it is. Parameters for its legitimacy for its existence have to stand as it purports to present a systemic solution.

Moreover, the thoughts behind it are often non-original if you put it under a scope. For example, egalitarian thinking existed way before. It is the right choice to debunk the thought that socialism holds a monopoly and definitional power of collective human will and various outcome needs, values, and organizational capacity. Held hostage, have humanity been to these mediocre Western systems. There is an inherent fallacy that people push. Namely, a good critique of Capitalism equates to the answer to the solution. It's frankly just reactionary, and I don't think there is real maturity from such dynamism. What you want are new better-defined questions outside the "anti-capitalism" fight.

I also have other issues with these socialist principles if put under the simulation. I think a discussion for another day, my friend.

I have no time or interest in ideologies. I believe they are dead and placeholders for lack of genuine development. Solutions should forever be moving, changing, and created by monitoring the needs, growth, objectives, etc. You will end up with a mixed solution that never needs to have these grand claims of archetypical battles.

 

[GemState]

@The alchemist @reer_ugaas_hussein

Socialism was only a serious thing for 85 years purely because it took over the Russian empire, and its immense economic potential. Had it successfully taken over a Finland it would've been meaningless.

People forget but early 20th century Russia was a juggernaut. Russia’s labour productivity was at 85% of the U.K. level. Russia’s productivity was on a par with France’s and significantly superior to Italy’s. It essentially would have been a Slavic America if the USSR didn't piss away Russia’s demographic & economic potential in the thirty years after they seized power (Civil War, famines, collectivization famine, Gulag, WW2 mismanagement, 1947 famine).

WW1 was a apocalyptic, world-shattering event of the old world, where people lost faith in the world-order. the timing for Lenin & the Bolsheviks was surreal

 

[The alchemist]

@The alchemist @reer_ugaas_hussein

Socialism was only a serious thing for 85 years purely because it took over the Russian empire, and its immense economic potential. Had it successfully taken over a Finland it would've been meaningless.

People forget but early 20th century Russia was a juggernaut. Russia’s labour productivity was at 85% of the U.K. level. Russia’s productivity was on a par with France’s and significantly superior to Italy’s. It essentially would have been a Slavic America if the USSR didn't piss away Russia’s demographic & economic potential in the thirty years after they seized power (Civil War, famines, collectivization famine, Gulag, WW2 mismanagement, 1947 famine).

WW1 was a apocalyptic, world-shattering event of the old world, where people lost faith in the world-order. the timing for Lenin & the Bolsheviks was surreal

The planned economy had an issue. Hypothetically, if the Soviet Union had AI to calculate more precise measures, it would solve economic mismanagement and yield a better and more efficient financial system. Doing that manually without the proper statistical indicators meant energy and skill-consuming computational, arduous hurdles where the supply and demand imbalance wasted resources and created internal financial irregularities. Where there was too much of one item in one place but too little of another commodity elsewhere. They had long queues in some areas and often consumer dissatisfaction generally, on top of country-wide resource and purchase-need dislocation. They should have devised a better economic system. Granted, it could be wishful thinking. Such a complex system would require a superior understanding of human affairs and refined theoretic planning.

The stochastic aggregation of Capitalism means that Americans never needed to worry about such a thing with the "free-market" idealism. Invisible hand this and some negative externalities there, inefficiencies here and there, inequalities, but there were constant stimulating dynamics to capture.

The Soviet Union became a bureaucratic, stagnant behemoth after its brief ideological optimism.