The results were Somalis eventually were stopped by Cuba and Russian "Advisors"
The Soviet Union was probably the best civilization.
- Thread starter Spongebob
- Start date
and some traitors within our own ranks.
It was just weird especially compared to the Russia of today.
Still quaint to see how it basically carried and spread an entire ideology extremely digestible slop (second to only nativist populism) to the disillusioned masses.
Still quaint to see how it basically carried and spread an entire ideology extremely digestible slop (second to only nativist populism) to the disillusioned masses.
Off to the gulags to you,
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
The alchemist
VIP
No. The Soviet Union was a failure and an atheist materialist dystopia. You can have pragmatic positive pieces while the overall system is a soulless machinery that does not mix well with the human spirit. Picking the positives out while ignoring that the whole thing was a failure is a deceptive game. Doesn't mean we cannot learn something from them; it does mean imitating them will lead to failure.
Karl Marx was an interesting thinker. Much more nuanced than people give him credit for. But the issue with communism that makes everything fail, is that it never supposes a correct human disposition, as such it is a reactionary systemic response to industrial capitalist oversight/externality mixed with hostility towards a historic elite-servile class (defined entirely from European feudal perception) contrast dynamics that is reductive in the overall perception of humans natural way of forming hierarchies down to the very tradition. As such I characterize communism as an overcorrection of capitalism than an independent thinking. Both those systems are very similar in the ideologies that ground them with shifting priorities and pragmatism, where shifts lie in populational philosophies, orientation around perspectives, and within-system change.
Karl Marx did not derive his ideas from independent axiomatic roots. If he did, his vision and theory would be very different, so the solution. The guy was so soulless he reduced religion to opiate. Capitalism created the issue of cogs in the machine, his response was encapsulated by the Soviet Union, a machine organization.
There was something funny about Communist involvement with Somalia in that they were calm at first but at the same time, their goals were implicitly going against another country's national sovereignty, long-term. We were just another base for them. They wanted to use our lands to build and test weapons facilities. Somalia was treated as a child:
Siyad Barre did some measures to check those developments:
Granted, they did have a sort of a delicate kids' glove compared to Americans when it came to early involvement helping with training, and certain facilitations, but as soon as there was friction between their interest and Somalia's, they quickly detached from relations, showing they were never respecting Somalia as an independent actor.
Somalia should have taken the deal the Saudis gave it and ended the communist relationship, receiving weapons and better relations with the US through that diplomacy. It was confirmed that this was on the table for Somalia at the time but Siyaad Barre never took it.
They should make movies out of this. Somalia became grounds for spy drama:
Karl Marx was an interesting thinker. Much more nuanced than people give him credit for. But the issue with communism that makes everything fail, is that it never supposes a correct human disposition, as such it is a reactionary systemic response to industrial capitalist oversight/externality mixed with hostility towards a historic elite-servile class (defined entirely from European feudal perception) contrast dynamics that is reductive in the overall perception of humans natural way of forming hierarchies down to the very tradition. As such I characterize communism as an overcorrection of capitalism than an independent thinking. Both those systems are very similar in the ideologies that ground them with shifting priorities and pragmatism, where shifts lie in populational philosophies, orientation around perspectives, and within-system change.
Karl Marx did not derive his ideas from independent axiomatic roots. If he did, his vision and theory would be very different, so the solution. The guy was so soulless he reduced religion to opiate. Capitalism created the issue of cogs in the machine, his response was encapsulated by the Soviet Union, a machine organization.
They were treacherous. They played both sides and leaned towards Ethiopia in the end. The issue with the Soviet Union is that they sought the region as a long-term geopolitical/strategic investment rather than an equal partner. Meaning, they wanted to play the same game Americans did. That is not to say they were aggressive, like the US projections. After all, they did train Somalis in intelligence apparatus (though Siyad Barre used those means to spy and control his own people rather than gather intel on Ethiopia). Somalia was a child that the Soviets wanted to raise with care and tenderness but very impersonal as if it were a foreign desert base. They did not want war between Somalia and Ethiopia because it merely was bad for their cultivation.
There was something funny about Communist involvement with Somalia in that they were calm at first but at the same time, their goals were implicitly going against another country's national sovereignty, long-term. We were just another base for them. They wanted to use our lands to build and test weapons facilities. Somalia was treated as a child:
Siyad Barre did some measures to check those developments:
Granted, they did have a sort of a delicate kids' glove compared to Americans when it came to early involvement helping with training, and certain facilitations, but as soon as there was friction between their interest and Somalia's, they quickly detached from relations, showing they were never respecting Somalia as an independent actor.
Somalia should have taken the deal the Saudis gave it and ended the communist relationship, receiving weapons and better relations with the US through that diplomacy. It was confirmed that this was on the table for Somalia at the time but Siyaad Barre never took it.
They should make movies out of this. Somalia became grounds for spy drama:
Last edited:
Somalia at that point was still very reliant on Soviet millitary hardware and without the purchase of spare parts and other equipment necessary for the daily upkeep of the armoured divisions the army would've fallen apart very quickly. The choice to switch from Soviet to American made weapons had to be much more gradual and delicate than what the Saudis had hoped for and put on the table.
If you don't care about context and only the results, then then don't be angry about Somalia's
situation today.
The alchemist
VIP
Not really. The diplomatic shifts undergoing by that point (this was 1977), and the Soviets were siding with Ethiopia quite in the open, having their concerns in the forefront and isolating Somalia. Somalia still decided to stick the snake that was blatantly betraying it. That was stupidity.
Siyaad walked back on the US relations when he regretted the choice and the doors were closed by that point at the turn of a losing war. Had Somalia taken the Saudi deal, that would have given them the door of stronger assurance.
On the matter of training, you're not factoring that the Soviets had already trained the Somalis in weapons use. Plus, no one sells you weapons without giving you a basic rundown when it comes to the more technical parts. The Soviet Union had given ample training and weaponry already for years at that point. Somalia was familiar with such an industry. Having more weapons and less training is exceedingly better than having none of it and no diplomatic lifeline. This is logical. The Soviet Union gave us nothing to counter that, so Somalia played itself.
Somalia would have been better off getting loads of weaponry from the US through the Saudis, and they would also become diplomatically pragmatic when the option was available. The US said f*ck you later because of the constant both-side peddling when you have no leverage and you're losing a war. The Americans are and were cutthroats when it came to foreign policy, however, Siyaad Barre utterly failed to harness that potential when it was given to him like cake. This was the ego of a dictator who thought he is the mastermind while other countries played him.
All the Socialists/Communists were really advocating for is democracy in the workplace the same way there is democracy (supposedly) in politics. Something like letting the workers of a business own the business jointly and vote in the people at the hierarchical positions like the managers and CEOs. Basically turning most businesses, especially large scale ones, into cooperatives. No more one stooge getting a 20 million USD paycheck while the average person at his company hardly cracks 100K. No more ever increasing worker productivity and somehow also stagnating wages.
Think something like Mondragon on an economy-wide scale:
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia
I don't think that is remotely antithetical to "human nature" or somehow impossible to pull off and the fact that so many believe it is and can't even define Socialism/Communism as I just did shows just how effective the West's "Red Terror" brainwashing was. Also, along that vein, the USSR was as Communist as the Nazis were Socialist or North Korea is actually a "Democratic Republic". That revolution may have started with such aspirations but it was very quickly hijacked by authoritarians who simply turned it into State-Capitalism and larped around with Marx and a "Communist" aesthetic:
There Is No Communism in Russia
Emma Goldman There Is No Communism in Russia 1935 Scanned from Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader, third edition, compiled and edited by Alix Kates...
theanarchistlibrary.org
The state, not the people, merely seizes Capitalist assets, controls them and supposedly redistributes wealth more "fairly". It's basically modern social-democracy on steroids. It was, in some ways, less despotic than some Capitalist states. Sometimes better welfare, commie blocks and yada yada but, in essence, there is no democracy in the workplace nor in politics where it frequently devolved into essentially dictatorships.
Last edited:
It was only after the war they created a seperate pre-condition to the deal i'll explain more about, that Somalis distanced themselves from socialism altogether and professed Islam. Even though Siad Barre and his government explicitly made it clear that Somalia was a Muslim country and was not aligned with any atheistic beliefs and that it professed Islam.
The Saudi state continued to perceive Somalia as communist atheist country and sought to over throw the government.
This is a correspondence between the Saudi Foreign Minister and the US, saying they never cared about Somalia or Ogaden and were more willing to support Ethiopia. The only they cared about was containing ''communism''. They were never in support of Somalia's claim over Ogaden. They were even willing to abandon the Muslims in Eritrea.
And Siad Barre actually took up Saudi's offer and they offered him 200 million before the war. The Saudis knew Barre would be under armed since the Soviets were unwilling to continue arms deliveries to Somalia . So Riyadh promised to equip the Somali army on the condition that the invasion of Ethiopia commence at the soonest.
So basically to keep it short the Saudi's snaked us and i probably think they were behind the subversion's that ended up seeing several people be executed. They went back against their promise with Somalia and their facade of support had zero to do with breaking away from the soviet or Ogaden, it was all tactical.
It's understandable. Somalia was a hotbed of covert proxies , subs versions and agents by foreign states. Where they would comprise Somalis from the inside to their bidding. They did everything to destabilize Somalia and was aiming to remove Siad Barre. Create a series of coups, insurgencies, flooding it with refugees to weaken it economically etc
In 1981 Libya created a coalition pact with South Yemen and Ethiopia, this pact was supported by the Soviet Union. The primary objective of this pact was to assassinate Siad Barre and Gafaar Nimeiry.
The secondary goals were mainly to destabilise Somalia along with other Arab states by funding and assisting insurgent rebel groups.
Gaddafi gave Ethiopia $150 million in aid, when adjusted to inflation that’s half a billion dollars.
Just trying to paint the picture of what was brewing inside Somali and the chaos they attempt to create.
Siad Barre was pragmatic in this sense , he deeply mistrusted both the Americans and the Soviets and sought to limit their role or influence and play them off eachother and tried to get what he wanted out of them.
Last edited:
All the Socialists/Communists were really advocating for is democracy in the workplace the same way there is democracy (supposedly) in politics. Something like letting the workers of a business own the business jointly and vote in the people at the hierarchical positions like the managers and CEOs. Basically turning most businesses, especially large scale ones, into cooperatives. No more one stooge getting a 20 million USD paycheck while the average person at his company hardly cracks 100K. No more ever increasing worker productivity and somehow also stagnating wages.
Think something like Mondragon on an economy-wide scale:
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't think that is remotely antithetical to "human nature" or somehow impossible to pull off and the fact that so many believe it is and can't even define Socialism/Communism as I just did shows just how effective the West's "Red Terror" brainwashing was. Also, along that vein, the USSR was as Communist as the Nazis were Socialist or North Korea is actually a "Democratic Republic". That revolution may have started with such aspirations but it was very quickly hijacked by authoritarians who simply turned it into State-Capitalism and larped around with Marx and a "Communist" aesthetic:
There Is No Communism in Russia
Emma Goldman There Is No Communism in Russia 1935 Scanned from Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader, third edition, compiled and edited by Alix Kates...
The state, not the people, merely seizes Capitalist assets, controls them and supposedly redistributes wealth more "fairly". It's basically modern social-democracy on steroids. It was, in some ways, less despotic than some Capitalist states. Sometimes better welfare, commie blocks and yada yada but, in essence, there is no democracy in the workplace nor in politics where it frequently devolved into essentially dictatorships.
Lmaao i made a thread about this, Elon , Jordan Peterson and others kept saying Nazis were socialist to deflect from the fact that they were nazi symphatizers. But just calling yourself something doesn't make you into one. When you look at their policies nothing about them reflected socialism
Elon Musk's "Hitler Problem" his unholy economic alliance with Nazi's
This 1 hour and 35 minute segment was packed with a lot of historical fact checking but this 1 excerpt describing the economic/labor policies of the Nazi party stood out to me the most. When you start to unpack all the political and ideological posturing people make (especially on the right )...
www.somalispot.com
Luckily, even most of the brainwashed masses lowkey can sense they're full of shit with that. They don't know how to articulate how but everyone innately knows the Nazis were far-right. This was a common trope throughout history. To hijack and use populist leftist, pro-worker sentiments to gain power and position then when you have it purge all the actual sincere communists, socialists and anarchists and reveal your true authoritarian colors. Happened in Russia, Germany, Korea and in some ways it's basically what Trump has been utilizing to his advantage with all the "drain the swamp", "we're gonna bring back our jobs" and other such rhetoric.
These often far-right authoritarians aren't morons. They know full-well how discontent the masses are and that most people despise and resent how rigged the global system is so they use that to their advantage then when they're in it's just more tax cuts and sitting at the table with the Capitalists they were pretending to platform against. The Nazis wasted no time purging all the sincere far-leftists among them as they came to power and were basically fellating German capitalists left and right. Fucking Hugo Boss designed their uniforms!
Meanwhile their “luxury” grocery stores looked like this
If that ain’t the definition of gaajo idk what is
Here is president of Soviet Union (Boris Yeltsin) dumbfounded at the variety available at American grocery store to add fuel to the fire. If an African country was run like this it would’ve been invaded and sanctioned on day 2 for human rights abuses
Like nigga are you stupid? Yes they were making a lot of advancements but the average persons life there was shit no wonder it collapsed. Best civilization kulaha like be f*cking for real
If that ain’t the definition of gaajo idk what is
Here is president of Soviet Union (Boris Yeltsin) dumbfounded at the variety available at American grocery store to add fuel to the fire. If an African country was run like this it would’ve been invaded and sanctioned on day 2 for human rights abuses
Like nigga are you stupid? Yes they were making a lot of advancements but the average persons life there was shit no wonder it collapsed. Best civilization kulaha like be f*cking for real
The only time Somalia wasn’t corrupt, inefficient, unstable was when it was Communist.
I think we shouldn't reduce the differences between communism and these modern social democracies . They might seem similar on the surface but their fundamental different. Every single communist state failed. With the exception of china. The phrase "communism with chinese charaestsics" is not just for show.
Their entire society has been state planned for millenia and even they only succeeded when they loosened state control of the economy. This is without even factoring in the huge amount of luck in their timing and the fact that the souther china had a huge anicent mercantile culture. There's a reason southern chinese merchants have always dominated the economy of southeast asia.
Their entire society has been state planned for millenia and even they only succeeded when they loosened state control of the economy. This is without even factoring in the huge amount of luck in their timing and the fact that the souther china had a huge anicent mercantile culture. There's a reason southern chinese merchants have always dominated the economy of southeast asia.
@The alchemistMeanwhile their “luxury” grocery stores looked like this
If that ain’t the definition of gaajo idk what is
Here is president of Soviet Union (Boris Yeltsin) dumbfounded at the variety available at American grocery store to add fuel to the fire. If an African country was run like this it would’ve been invaded and sanctioned on day 2 for human rights abuses
The only reason the USSR failed was because they had spent too much of their budget on preparing for WW3, whilst neglecting their home policies.
You claim that the USSR was a atheist failure yet it managed to last and exert influence around the globe. There was a point in the 1960s and 1970s where public opinion had thought that the US was headed for decline and collapse, due to the frequent Soviet Successes in space flight, tech, biology, etc.
@caanoshaah
These pictures are from 1989-1991, which is inaccurate to say that this was the USSR at it's peak.
Look at any photos from 1960s to year 1980.
I will reiterate here, they overspent on military, which led to their collapse
e - otherwise it would still be here.
Last edited:
Can you name any other civilisation that didn't run on socialist policies?
You make no sense at all
. Can you provide an argument against what I have said without resorting to insults?
