The Soviet Union was probably the best civilization.

[Zak12]

because Siad Barre wanted to march towards Addis Abba.

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.

and play them off eachother and tried to get what he wanted out of them.

IIRC, you posted another source showing this was the case as well. Barre kept America at arms distance even after he went to their side in the 80s.

 

[Spongebob]

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.

View attachment 352266



IIRC, you posted another source showing this was the case as well. Barre kept America at arms distance even after he went to their side in the 80s.

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.

It becomes even more frustrating to see, Barre's war was close in time to Reagan's inauguration, coupled with the fact that he would have given more aid to Somalia than Afghanistan did from 1979-89.

From the US perspective, funding Afghanistan meant funding militias whereas Reagan may have felt the need to 'save' Somalia from communism.

 

[MalcolmFitzhugh08]

Wallahi, watching these videos make me nostalgic for a time that I wasn't born in.

Whether you hate or love communism, just drop all your pre-conceived notions about anything and just take a look at this.


Now read some of the comments:







Hopefully our Nation will be held with such prestige.

I don't think the 7 million holdomor victims like this video.

 

[The alchemist]

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...

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.

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.

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:

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.

 

[The alchemist]

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 have to read up on this spesifically. Somalia was never true socialist. I have written about that before:

What if Castro's vision came true?

In the leadup to the Ogden war, meetings were held and in one of them, Castro proposed Somalia, Ethiopia and north yemen unite into a red sea socialist federation. I don't remember exactly what happened next but it fell apart because of a yemeni diplomat.

www.somalispot.com

It was Somalia that framed Mengistu in a favorable light to the Arab world, by the way. The Arab world was favorable to Somalis but Barre played the game wrong, either way. That's pretty blatant. His foreign policy and ideological virtue signaling were wack and people could see the cheap moves from miles away.

We have plenty of evidence showing the guy was suppressing the Islamic character of the land in favor of kuffar sociological ideology to signal better favor with the socialist world. He executed learned Islamic men, monitored the mosques and many people who were against this were persecuted and sometimes had to flee the country. Let's not frame Somalia during Siyaad days as "Islamic." It was fake socialism, rightly called out by the socialist Castro who favored Ethiopia and undermined Somalia, but Siyaad Barre was a secularist either way. Somalis were Muslims and very conservative, the government and its leanings were not at all. There was a big discrepancy between the views of the people and the regime. The regime was not Islamic at all, it was a secular bureaucratic pragmatist that failed to be pragmatic. Anyway, I don't want to talk about Siyaad more than this and I don't care who agrees or disagrees. This is an exhausted topic.

 

[The alchemist]

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.

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:

Marxist–Leninist atheism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A guy like you who do not read have no idea how the Soviet Union broke the Islamic character of the several Central Asian nations and some Balkan countries that yet still holds big legacy today.

GDP being high was a function of the Soviets being a large factory, not a liveable balanced place. The living standards and quality of life of the people were bad. Yes, the USSR produced a lot of weapons, and its industrial capacity was next to none, still, it was a 20th century dystopia. The economy was highly mismanaged because they did not have the computational foresight. A financial system of that size cannot accurately plan for the complex stochasticicity with only pen and paper. But you don't know what I am talking about. You're the type of guy who watches one video and then thinks the place was idyllic. There is a reason why socialists of today try to distance themselves from the Soviet Union.

The irony is, Soviet Union became the industrialist nightmare that set Marx into a radical pursuit from experiencing the negatives of Capitalist industrial ambition. Part of that is owed to Marxian thinking that did wanted to break society down and was a macro-materialist. I guess if you control the means of production within an industrial machine based nation, its all good, right? It's all good if we're all equal in the pursuit of mass production.

I want to add, life was not super terrible for everyone, naturally. I know the behemoth had nuances. Yet, it's a far cry from what you are portraying.

 

[reer]

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.

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.

 

[The alchemist]

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.

But in foreign policy you need to deal with the immediate, what's in front of your. What's serves your best interest.

 

[Vacelere]

Wallahi, watching these videos make me nostalgic for a time that I wasn't born in.

Whether you hate or love communism, just drop all your pre-conceived notions about anything and just take a look at this.


Now read some of the comments:







Hopefully our Nation will be held with such prestige.

Yeah it's very good to the point it lasted less than 100 years and cause millions of deaths and famines.

 

[The alchemist]

I have the same birthday as Karl Marx.

 

[Spongebob]

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.

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 still believe that the Union had achieved all this, however I can see your perspective and agree with parts of it.

 

[The alchemist]

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 still believe that the Union had achieved all this, however I can see your perspective and agree with parts of it.

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.

 

[Spongebob]

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

 

[The alchemist]

 

[Idilinaa]

I have to read up on this spesifically. Somalia was never true socialist. I have written about that before:

What if Castro's vision came true?

In the leadup to the Ogden war, meetings were held and in one of them, Castro proposed Somalia, Ethiopia and north yemen unite into a red sea socialist federation. I don't remember exactly what happened next but it fell apart because of a yemeni diplomat.

www.somalispot.com

It was Somalia that framed Mengistu in a favorable light to the Arab world, by the way. The Arab world was favorable to Somalis but Barre played the game wrong, either way. That's pretty blatant. His foreign policy and ideological virtue signaling were wack and people could see the cheap moves from miles away.

We have plenty of evidence showing the guy was suppressing the Islamic character of the land in favor of kuffar sociological ideology to signal better favor with the socialist world. He executed learned Islamic men, monitored the mosques and many people who were against this were persecuted and sometimes had to flee the country. Let's not frame Somalia during Siyaad days as "Islamic." It was fake socialism, rightly called out by the socialist Castro who favored Ethiopia and undermined Somalia, but Siyaad Barre was a secularist either way. Somalis were Muslims and very conservative, the government and its leanings were not at all. There was a big discrepancy between the views of the people and the regime. The regime was not Islamic at all, it was a secular bureaucratic pragmatist that failed to be pragmatic. Anyway, I don't want to talk about Siyaad more than this and I don't care who agrees or disagrees. This is an exhausted topic.

Never said Somalia was truly a socialist country in the full sense of the term, only that this was the perception Saudis had and they were against it. Saudis were takfiri's, i'll explain in another post. I have argued many times before that they operated more like mixed socialist-capitalist country economically and Islamically ideologically and the perception from both the American and Soviet's side of things was that Siad Barre was not motivated by ideological application of it but more so saw it as a tool for economic development. Which is correct.

You can see this echoed here:

''we found in Mogadishu signs of capitalism which was preserved during 8 years Russian influence.

''we saw Somali leaders pre-occupied with the Ogaden war and economic development than with a brand of socialism''

''Somalia seems an unlikely convert to communism''

You can also see it in the practical application that they allowed private ownership and livestock remained in private hand and small business was left untouched. While schools, factories/enterprises, electricity and petroleum were nationalized.

They also encouraged private trade/investment and allowed Somali businesses to operate and promised to safeguard it from nationalization.

The government also built malls with dozens of shops and businesses to boost trade.

So needless to say Siad Barre was a pragmatic man motivated by economic development and not ideological considerations for socialism or marxism.

To be be clear Siad Barre didn't introduce communisim/marxism/socialism to Somalia, it was the government prior to him and he inherited it but sought to limit and restrict it and but also keep the military satisfied who had come under the influence of the soviet.

It's part of the reason why a section of the military like the SDSF turned against him in 1978 and betrayed Somalia after they cut off relations with the Soviet and they protested it. They were more loyal to the soviet and communism than the Somali nation , bunch of traitors.
They also despised the government because of lack of marxist application and ''international capitalism'' loool

 

[Idilinaa]

I have to read up on this spesifically. Somalia was never true socialist. I have written about that before:

What if Castro's vision came true?

In the leadup to the Ogden war, meetings were held and in one of them, Castro proposed Somalia, Ethiopia and north yemen unite into a red sea socialist federation. I don't remember exactly what happened next but it fell apart because of a yemeni diplomat.

www.somalispot.com

It was Somalia that framed Mengistu in a favorable light to the Arab world, by the way. The Arab world was favorable to Somalis but Barre played the game wrong, either way. That's pretty blatant. His foreign policy and ideological virtue signaling were wack and people could see the cheap moves from miles away.

We have plenty of evidence showing the guy was suppressing the Islamic character of the land in favor of kuffar sociological ideology to signal better favor with the socialist world. He executed learned Islamic men, monitored the mosques and many people who were against this were persecuted and sometimes had to flee the country. Let's not frame Somalia during Siyaad days as "Islamic." It was fake socialism, rightly called out by the socialist Castro who favored Ethiopia and undermined Somalia, but Siyaad Barre was a secularist either way. Somalis were Muslims and very conservative, the government and its leanings were not at all. There was a big discrepancy between the views of the people and the regime. The regime was not Islamic at all, it was a secular bureaucratic pragmatist that failed to be pragmatic. Anyway, I don't want to talk about Siyaad more than this and I don't care who agrees or disagrees. This is an exhausted topic.

Somalia during his regime was not a secular country at all. Islam was considered a state religion. They made quranic school compulsory and built mosques and professed/stressed Islam.

Islam as a state religion

He favored the Wadaads (Religious men) bringing literacy to the masses in the form of Islamic education and he’s seen condemning sectarianism, and calling for the construction and advancement of Duksi’s (islamic schools)

Documentary segment mentioning and showing the construction of moques and Duksi's schools and the central role Islamic education had:



You can also see it in the governments policies: Not only were religious leaders elevated into position but in many cases Islamic credentials became mandatory.

American diplomatic assessment:

“𝘙𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤. 𝘚𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰-𝘰𝘱𝘵 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘴. 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴”

Also foreign policy wise Somalia swayed more towards Muslim/Arab countries than with the soviet or communist bloc. Proving to that Islam and their Arab/Religious cultural ties mattered more to them than communism

Mengistu was not perceived favorable in the Muslim world if you discount South Yemen and Libya, none was supportive of him and Saudi's in the classified document i showed you was supportive of a moderate Ethiopia but wanted to outs him for being a communist and thats why they pushed for Somalia to invade Ethiopia but snaked us in the end because they didn't care about Ogaden only what was tactical to them. Saudi's back then were no different from what we come to know them now, they abandoned even Muslims in Eritrea and sponsored jihadi terrorism in Muslim lands.

Same goes for Libya they were sponsoring destabilization efforts in Arab/Muslim countries and Gadaffi was neither pro-Arab or Pan-African as he pretended to the masses in his meglomaniacle antics.

All those countries were annoyed with Somalia because it's perused its own independent interests, rather than being a puppet tool that they wanted it to be.

Why did he monitor people? Because they were religious or was it because they were subversives?

The so called ''Sheikhs'' or ''learned men'' were Saudi and Al-Qaida operatives . Saudis were sponsoring terrorism and were crazy maniac Takfiris called other Muslims kuffar and atheist and you see it come full circle into a dangerous idealogy where they attempted to incite violence. It was not much different from Alshabaab we currently see today

I am not sure if this is correct interpretation. As he has done a full length interview with Egyptian journalists about this about the inheritance law controversy and religion.

From this, it looks like the regime was battling kwharij rebels that were trying to incite and provoke violence through the use of religion, threatening to murder people, doing takfir by claiming him and others are atheists and so on.

He also made it frank anything people found that is wrong with the law could be amended and changed if people demanded it

The full interview has been posted before on this forum

EGYPTIAN MAGAZINE INTERVIEWS SIAD BARRE

[ROSE AL-YUSUF Editor Muhammad Awdah's interview with Somali President, Mohammed Siad Barre] Question: But our spiritual, cultural and national heritage is an Islamic heritage. Does that not conflict with the choice of Marxism? Answer: The Somalis are Muslim Arabs. They fully understand the...

www.somalispot.com

 

[Idilinaa]

''we found in Mogadishu signs of capitalism which was preserved during 8 years Russian influence.

''we saw Somali leaders pre-occupied with the Ogaden war and economic development than with a brand of socialism''

''Somalia seems an unlikely convert to communism''

View attachment 352340
View attachment 352341

You can also see it in the practical application that they allowed private ownership and livestock remained in private hand and small business was left untouched. While schools, factories/enterprises, electricity and petroleum were nationalized.

View attachment 352344

They also encouraged private trade/investment and allowed Somali businesses to operate and promised to safeguard it from nationalization.
View attachment 352345

The government also built malls with dozens of shops and businesses to boost trade.

So needless to say Siad Barre was a pragmatic man motivated by economic development and not ideological considerations for socialism or marxism.
View attachment 352346

Siyaad Barre encouraged free trade and private investment. In 1972 the government built a commercial mall with over 100 shops to bolster free trade in the country

. In 1976 Siyaad Barre stated the following in a speech regarding private investment.

"We have no new nationalizations in view. Our goal was, and it remains, to nationalize the firms of those who exploit the Somali people. But we have never had the intention of attacking private property as such Private property has been nationalized only when it constituted an element of exploitation”.

“No one here, for example, has ever thought about nationalizing agriculture or industry. On the contrary, we encourage private enterprise in that area. In any case, there is no question of nationalizing land, because we have enough arable land for everyone who needs any”.

It was socialist only in so far as it attempted to curtail exploitation and private abuse and was re-distrubutive, restrict wealth accumilation at the top and pro social programs. Otherwise it had many capitalist driven elements that promoted private sector development and tried to create a balance between private sector and public sector regulatory mechanisms.

1970 clarification by the government:

Some more explanation of their philosophy:

 

[Galool]

Are you not Muslim? How can you say an atheistic empire that oppressed Muslims and tried to destroy Islam is the best?

The fact that it no longer exists tells you it was not the best even from a secular perspective.

You are projecting romanticism from short clips designed to make it look good.

Muslims know the best state is one that implements and follows Islam fully. It is outlined in our religion, everything else is oppressive and doomed.

 

[Spongebob]

Never said Somalia was truly a socialist country in the full sense of the term, only that this was the perception Saudis had and they were against it. Saudis were takfiri's, i'll explain in another post. I have argued many times before that they operated more like mixed socialist-capitalist country economically and Islamically ideologically and the perception from both the American and Soviet's side of things was that Siad Barre was not motivated by ideological application of it but more so saw it as a tool for economic development. Which is correct.

You can see this echoed here:

''we found in Mogadishu signs of capitalism which was preserved during 8 years Russian influence.

''we saw Somali leaders pre-occupied with the Ogaden war and economic development than with a brand of socialism''

''Somalia seems an unlikely convert to communism''

View attachment 352340
View attachment 352341

You can also see it in the practical application that they allowed private ownership and livestock remained in private hand and small business was left untouched. While schools, factories/enterprises, electricity and petroleum were nationalized.

View attachment 352344

They also encouraged private trade/investment and allowed Somali businesses to operate and promised to safeguard it from nationalization.
View attachment 352345

The government also built malls with dozens of shops and businesses to boost trade.

So needless to say Siad Barre was a pragmatic man motivated by economic development and not ideological considerations for socialism or marxism.
View attachment 352346

To be be clear Siad Barre didn't introduce communisim/marxism/socialism to Somalia, it was the government prior to him and he inherited it but sought to limit and restrict it and but also keep the military satisfied who had come under the influence of the soviet.
View attachment 352342

It's part of the reason why a section of the military like the SDSF turned against him in 1978 and betrayed Somalia after they cut off relations with the Soviet and they protested it. They were more loyal to the soviet and communism than the Somali nation , bunch of traitors.
They also despised the government because of lack of marxist application and ''international capitalism'' loool

Ideally this is a good type of state.

Important things are nationalised (health, education, transport, energy, certain things such as local shops and high street shops can be private, law firms, financial firms, etc.

Private production companies (such as tech industry and construction companies for example) can be allowed to remain private and make profit, if they are committed to the state's development and act in the people's interest.

As for ownership of land, generally same as what you have said.

Where do you and others find these books btw? Interesting read.