I'm not sure where this misconception came from. There is no proof Barre wanted to march into Addis, his only goals were the capture of Jigjiga and Dir Dhaba aka Galbeed essentially.
I see. Regardless, if wanted it, he should have waited until the 1980s, where US support was guaranteed due to Reagan's disdain for communism.
I don't think the 7 million holdomor victims like this video.
I think you subscribe to a modern lite-socialism that has gone through quite the layers of extractive iterations. If you read Karl Marx, the underlying philosophy and worldview that brings with its overarching narrative, what you find is more than the democratization of work and profit allocations/distribution and ownership of means of production. And if you notice what I said, it has its positives. Certain functions can be applicable. Some concerns are real. However, socialism today as subscribed by most is not Communism or Marxism in the true sense, although they might extract ideas here and there. Hasan Piker is a Capitalist Socialist.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.
I have to read up on this spesifically. Somalia was never true socialist. I have written about that before: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.
Summary of a meeting between U.S. officials Paul B. Henze and Richard M. Moose, and Saudi Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Abd-al-Rahman Al-Mansouri regarding Saudi Arabian policy toward Ethiopia and Somalia - Document - U.S. Declassified Documents O
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.
I don't claim, I state a fact. It was atheistic (read Lenin, Stalin, and see they were Atheist materialists...) - some of you talk about things without reading on the matter but then think you can have these conversations. There is much scholarship on that matter. Lenin even wanted to create an Atheist religious like system that competes with religion:
somalia had a pro western government in the 60s and uncle sam refused to beef up the somali army under abdirashid ali sharmarke. there was little evidence they would be true to their word.
That's not what I said. If you read, America was a cutthroat. You can't trust those people.
Yeah it's very good to the point it lasted less than 100 years and cause millions of deaths and famines.
Informative, my perception of the Soviet Union was that it was a union of republics in which it's people would have services such as transport, energy, health and education paid for and taken care of by the state wherein the people were given ample opportunity to prosper, at least those in industrialised oblasts as far as I know. - a more extreme version of Scandinavia's social policies.I think you subscribe to a modern lite-socialism that has gone through quite the layers of extractive iterations. If you read Karl Marx, the underlying philosophy and worldview that brings with its overarching narrative, what you find is more than the democratization of work and profit allocations/distribution and ownership of means of production. And if you notice what I said, it has its positives. Certain functions can be applicable. Some concerns are real. However, socialism today as subscribed by most is not Communism or Marxism in the true sense, although they might extract ideas here and there. Hasan Piker is a Capitalist Socialist.
The old Marxism which I am referring to, that Communism largely based itself on, was narrative-driven and had archetypes of how the collective functioned historically from an interpretive point of view that is explanatory weak, and limited, which I don't think is accurate picture, and they assume things about human nature by definition that one can demonstrably scrutinize.
To correct you on the matter of human nature, Marx had zero conception outside the material world. I can make assumptions about why he neglected that; it gave him the clean slate for him to draw associations more freely. He never addressed the functions of how hierarchies existed before feudal lords exploited peasants. The Communist Manifesto starts with Marx describing history as class struggle-oriented.
Since I am lazy, I will just post some notes I took from starting reading that text before I exited since I found the book to be juvinile:
"Materialist class perspective, no mention of issues of values in society as the salient issue where oppressive tyrannical elites undermine the poor instead of viewing class as a justifiable social unit when that is an overgeneralization of wide diversity of societies and their value-functions to hierarchical participation and interactions. Simply calling things a class struggle between rich and poor is an inadequate framing of any society of the past without understanding the function of society. Communism in this respect presents itself as a reductive, removed value-less skeletal beast that seeks to stilt societal functions, insensitive to the human condition and its love for life and struggle for it."
It's actually worse than I described it above. Communism by Marx was seen not as an integrative system but as a competing one to all other systems -- that includes culture. Tradition was merely reduced to a system of conservation of the bourgeoisie and propagation of it. So for him, all that needed to be wiped clean before ushering in a system he called radical.
View attachment 352261
Again, this is something I fundamentally disagree with. It is important to note that this is written in the Manifesto, clearly reducing the concept of culture as a training for the masses to support elite economic advantage. Everything is extremely materialistic, defined by class dichotomy, or as he describes it "class antagonism."
Marx said, ideally he wanted the abolition of the family and you're saying it was not about the wrong perception of human nature:
View attachment 352239
The solution for him was that children would be brought up in what he called the Social. The relationship between a father and a son was problematic to this guy because for some reason it perpetuates the state of the bourgeoisie.
The man said the state was a superintendence of production, reinforcing my thought that communism was a hypermaterialist perspective turning everything machine-system oriented because it was an industrial capitalist overcorrection, instead of being a holistic independent thinking that served the essential human good.
Not only that, Marx not only did not have a historical materialist worldview, he posited that there was no such thing as an individual human nature that you can abstract, the nature of humans was the interactive process of a whole group, the guy was a macro-functionalist.
If you bring together these thoughts, there is no wonder that The Soviets and China became what they became. It was always cthe ore of Marxian thinking to systematize and break down traditional, even biological sense of human nature and community for a systemic functionalist one.
Dude even said removing the distinction between town and country. These are strange ideas.
There is a reason why the Communist Soviet Union turned out the way it turned out, and its issues were a feature, not an error. I can even grant you that it was an inner-system imbalance. Nevertheless, here is the fundamental kicker, the whole system is based on materialist atheistic functions and that comes from holding nothing sacred but economic justice from elites, even if the cost is to turn a whole country into a soulless place.
I am a free-market guy. I would not call myself a capitalist. Just free commerce, old school and I do believe people should be able to be rich, but there should be a way for the extremely rich to potentially give back more. If people want to integrate socialism or try socialism, they're free to do that. I'm not a capitalist propagandist and have a lot of critiques for capitalism as practiced by America, for example. I was a psudeo-socialist in the past, around high school. I was never antagonistic to socialism. My sympathy extended such that I probably considered myself more of a Socialist than a Capitalist back in the day. So I am not affected by the red scare or Americanist view of any kind. I don't care what any party says, this is from what I think it wrong. It's what I think is not functional or aligns with what I care about. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the soviet union was not good for the human condition and a lot of the thinking of Marx was defined by his experience of the early mercantilist industry, steel beams, coal, and blackened white kids in the factory. Besides the kids in factories, the Soviet Union was way more industrialist than America ever could be.
And it is very important to distinguish my critique of Marxian thinking and communist Soviet with mere support for workers and possibly several solutions for that. If people want to democratize work, they can do it. Marx was more than just that and so wat the USSR.
I live in Norway. Nothing about this country is like the USSR. We're just a balanced capitalist system. We're as free market as the US but with better safety nets, systemic processes that allow people to rise in economic mobility, and things of that nature through public goods and institutions. It's called socialist democracy. USSR was not an extreme version of a socialist democracy, and we're not an extreme deviation from socialism. Americans call Scandinavian countries socialist because they're ignorant.
I see
