By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - So, can someone tell me again why communism is so bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia


Somalia's adherence to socialism became official on the first anniversary of the military coup when Siad Barre proclaimed that Somalia was a socialist state, despite the fact that the country had no history of class conflict in the Marxist sense. For purposes of Marxist analysis, therefore, tribalism was equated with class in a society struggling to liberate itself from distinctions imposed by lineage group affiliation. At the time, Siad Barre explained that the official ideology consisted of three elements: his own conception of community development based on the principle of self-reliance, a form of socialism based on Marxist principles, and Islam. These were subsumed under "scientific socialism," although such a definition was at variance with the Soviet and Chinese models to which reference was frequently made.

The theoretical underpinning of the state ideology combined aspects of the Qur'an with the influences of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, but Siad Barre was pragmatic in its application. "Socialism is not a religion," he explained; "It is a political principle" to organize government and manage production. Somalia's alignment with communist states, coupled with its proclaimed adherence to scientific socialism, led to frequent accusations that the country had become a Soviet satellite. For all the rhetoric extolling scientific socialism, however, genuine Marxist sympathies were not deep-rooted in Somalia. But the ideology was acknowledged--partly in view of the country's economic and military dependence on the Soviet Union--as the most convenient peg on which to hang a revolution introduced through a military coup that had supplanted a Western-oriented parliamentary democracy.

More important than Marxist ideology to the popular acceptance of the revolutionary regime in the early 1970s were the personal power of Siad Barre and the image he projected. Styled the "Victorious Leader" (Guulwaadde), Siad Barre fostered the growth of a personality cult. Portraits of him in the company of Marx and Lenin festooned the streets on public occasions. The epigrams, exhortations, and advice of the paternalistic leader who had synthesized Marx with Islam and had found a uniquely Somali path to socialist revolution were widely distributed in Siad Barre's little blue-and-white book. Despite the revolutionary regime's intention to stamp out the clan politics, the government was commonly referred to by the code name MOD. This acronym stood for Marehan (Siad Barre's clan), Ogaden (the clan of Siad Barre's mother), and Dulbahante (the clan of Siad Barre son-in-law Colonel Ahmad Sulaymaan Abdullah, who headed the NSS). These were the three clans whose members formed the government's inner circle. In 1975, for example, ten of the twenty members of the SRC were from the Daarood clan-family, of which these three clans were a part, while the Digil and Rahanweyn, sedentary interriverine clan-families, were totally unrepresented.


Close enough, no?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network

Because in reality all communism is is another form of dictatorship, well at least in the practical sense. If communism ever worked in the way it was supposed to it would be a good form of government but it just never turns out that way.

Even under people who seemed to mean fairly well - Lenin for example - it didn't really work and people like Stalin gave it the same kind of stigma attached to fascism.



mrstickball said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia


Somalia's adherence to socialism became official on the first anniversary of the military coup when Siad Barre proclaimed that Somalia was a socialist state, despite the fact that the country had no history of class conflict in the Marxist sense. For purposes of Marxist analysis, therefore, tribalism was equated with class in a society struggling to liberate itself from distinctions imposed by lineage group affiliation. At the time, Siad Barre explained that the official ideology consisted of three elements: his own conception of community development based on the principle of self-reliance, a form of socialism based on Marxist principles, and Islam. These were subsumed under "scientific socialism," although such a definition was at variance with the Soviet and Chinese models to which reference was frequently made.

The theoretical underpinning of the state ideology combined aspects of the Qur'an with the influences of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, but Siad Barre was pragmatic in its application. "Socialism is not a religion," he explained; "It is a political principle" to organize government and manage production. Somalia's alignment with communist states, coupled with its proclaimed adherence to scientific socialism, led to frequent accusations that the country had become a Soviet satellite. For all the rhetoric extolling scientific socialism, however, genuine Marxist sympathies were not deep-rooted in Somalia. But the ideology was acknowledged--partly in view of the country's economic and military dependence on the Soviet Union--as the most convenient peg on which to hang a revolution introduced through a military coup that had supplanted a Western-oriented parliamentary democracy.

More important than Marxist ideology to the popular acceptance of the revolutionary regime in the early 1970s were the personal power of Siad Barre and the image he projected. Styled the "Victorious Leader" (Guulwaadde), Siad Barre fostered the growth of a personality cult. Portraits of him in the company of Marx and Lenin festooned the streets on public occasions. The epigrams, exhortations, and advice of the paternalistic leader who had synthesized Marx with Islam and had found a uniquely Somali path to socialist revolution were widely distributed in Siad Barre's little blue-and-white book. Despite the revolutionary regime's intention to stamp out the clan politics, the government was commonly referred to by the code name MOD. This acronym stood for Marehan (Siad Barre's clan), Ogaden (the clan of Siad Barre's mother), and Dulbahante (the clan of Siad Barre son-in-law Colonel Ahmad Sulaymaan Abdullah, who headed the NSS). These were the three clans whose members formed the government's inner circle. In 1975, for example, ten of the twenty members of the SRC were from the Daarood clan-family, of which these three clans were a part, while the Digil and Rahanweyn, sedentary interriverine clan-families, were totally unrepresented.


Close enough, no?

ok they had relations with the soviet union, but they were not openly communist, somalia was ruled by 1 man at that time, and he was excepting help from anyone to keep his power, in 1977 soviet screwed somalia and saided with Ethopia and Siad Barre saided with the usa briefly to get what he wanted.

 



Wii/Mario Kart Wii Code:2793-0686-5434

The idea of communism sounds great, sharing with your fellow man and working together are great values. Communism has worked well in small, tribal settings. The problem is, it's not sharing when you're forced, and that's what national communism is. To force someone to share is actually stealing, sharing has to be voluntary, period.

Government enforced communism has never really worked well anywhere, because the amount of controls imposed to enforce it end up stifling the population. When an individual knows that no matter how hard they work they can't earn more money, WHY WOULD THEY WORK HARDER? I work very hard because I know my boss sees that and he gives me raises for it; I had a co-worker who didn't work so hard and he got fired. In communism we all share alike, so why should I work harder than my neighbor?? Because of this, forced communism produces societies that don't innovate at the same rate as the more capitalist nations, because freedom is a great help to innovation, and the prospect of earning a large financial reward for innovating also provides great motivation to WORK HARD to innovate.

In regards to China- In reality, China is doing well now because of reforms that have moved their economy in a more capitalist direction (however, they still have a very controlling government and a lack of political freedom). China is having an economic turnaround not BECAUSE of communism, but IN SPITE of it. You can't really use China as an example of how well communism works when they are growing economically because they have begun to move away from communist economic principles after years of failure, that's a self damning argument. In fact, China is an example of how forced communism DOESN'T work. After years of their economy being in shambles, they made some capitalistic reforms and their economy begins to turn around. In fact, as of 2005, 70% of China's GDP was in the private sector. This would not be possible in a fully communist setting, as ther would be no private sector. How does this support your argument???



All form of governments look good on paper.



Around the Network

I was gonna post in this thread, but there's really not much more to say than what has been said.



Seppukuties is like LBP Lite, on crack. Play it already!

Currently wrapped up in: Half Life, Portal, and User Created Source Mods
Games I want: (Wii)Mario Kart, Okami, Bully, Conduit,  No More Heroes 2 (GC) Eternal Darkness, Killer7, (PS2) Ico, God of War1&2, Legacy of Kain: SR2&Defiance


My Prediction: Wii will be achieve 48% market share by the end of 2008, and will achieve 50% by the end of june of 09. Prediction Failed.

<- Click to see more of her

 

Galaki said:
All form of governments look good on paper.

I dunno.  I don't think like a dictatorship sounds good on paper.

 

Well except in the bible i guess.

 



um china's not communist.... it's capitalist. we just think they are communist since they have been for a long time. in reality they are capitalist with convictions and censorship just about the same as our dear own founding pilgrims.

anyway here is how communism doesn't work, in a place more communist, like north korea.

a shoe factory has an order from the government to make 10,000 shoes with a certain amount of leather. the factory is by some chance unable to procure half as much leather because of weather famine so forth. Those 10,000 shoes still have to be made. And guess what, it will be with half as much leather, because the manager does not want to let the government down.
that's pretty much how old communist china was. things are more capitalist now with more open markets, but communism does not endorse quality in the slightest.

COMMUNISM= quantity over quality
DEMOCRACY=quality over quantity
CORPORATISM(which is what the US is)=Money over everything

edit:sry capitalist is a market strategy, not a gov. China is more like a communist/democratic hybrid. with more emphasis on dictatorship.



Kasz216 said:
Galaki said:
All form of governments look good on paper.

I dunno.  I don't think like a dictatorship sounds good on paper.

 

Well except in the bible i guess.

 

Sometimes dictatorship is good in practice, Bhutan was until recently an absolute monarchy (dictatorship) and were one of the happiest countries in the world.

 



Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Galaki said:
All form of governments look good on paper.

I dunno. I don't think like a dictatorship sounds good on paper.

 

Well except in the bible i guess.

 

Sometimes dictatorship is good in practice, Bhutan was until recently an absolute monarchy (dictatorship) and were one of the happiest countries in the world.

 

Sure some work in practice but "Some guy rules with no imput from anybody else" sounds horrible on paper.