Somalis have had experience with these 2 economic Systems in the Civilian govt era(1960-1969) vs Kacaan(1969-1991). Below is a simplistic account from what i gathered about each model from local sources.
Under the civilian era the market was 1% elite rich and 99% poor, mass illeratcy no potential to educate even, poor health outcomes universally, lack of shelter and only communals/share housing was rife. Govt Tax revenue obviously low becuz of a dead market in terms of consumers and therefore infrastructure and public services became non-existant. Reminds me of the West pre-union and strong govt era. Where 1% was wealthy but everyone else was in ghettos and social and public infrastructure non-existant due to no tax revenues.
Under the Kacaan social metrics rose such as literacy, health, but the market and production areas was to centralized to national ownership and lacked much private ownership, even farming was controlled by the govt and led to black markets to emerge. Business ppl should be free to develop the market and not the government as they end up centralizing wealth plus power which isn't a good mix.
After studying and inquiring lots of Somalis about that 2 eras and it's benefits/negatives/strength/weakness. I've concluded im a socialist as long as the goal post is Pure capitalism and Pure Communism, Im in the middle. Not this 'western models' who have a very different experience and model, as I lean to Bernie Sander under their model.
Why im socialist is their is a 2 goal posts for me. Human desires and Human needs. Everything that is a need should be socialized and managed by the state universally such as the right to education and health, but also the right to 'food/water' security plus shelter right.
Needs doesn't mean you get to have the best steak or castle, but that society should work out what basic nutrition a human needs to be alive, if you want a steak or castle, u need to work for it, becuz those are not needs but desires. Even the right to a shelter in my view doesn't mean a beautiful villa or castle, but a basic shelter only and if you desire more then you work for it in the private market.
I also believe the economic policy of a country should balance the need of it's elites and investors to make profit and blossom but not trade it off to the extent it leads to no strong consumer base or middle class. I think this benefits both the investing class and consumers, if the consumers become richer, it trickles up-wards to make them wealthier, the pyramid structure won't change at all if that's what investor fears, in-fact you will grow even wealthier if all your market is spending and consuming and can lead to you developing consortiums to tap into other growing market areas.
In theory a govt able to have infinite amount of tax stream thru it's developed market should also lead to better infrastructure, social services.
Under the civilian era the market was 1% elite rich and 99% poor, mass illeratcy no potential to educate even, poor health outcomes universally, lack of shelter and only communals/share housing was rife. Govt Tax revenue obviously low becuz of a dead market in terms of consumers and therefore infrastructure and public services became non-existant. Reminds me of the West pre-union and strong govt era. Where 1% was wealthy but everyone else was in ghettos and social and public infrastructure non-existant due to no tax revenues.
Under the Kacaan social metrics rose such as literacy, health, but the market and production areas was to centralized to national ownership and lacked much private ownership, even farming was controlled by the govt and led to black markets to emerge. Business ppl should be free to develop the market and not the government as they end up centralizing wealth plus power which isn't a good mix.
After studying and inquiring lots of Somalis about that 2 eras and it's benefits/negatives/strength/weakness. I've concluded im a socialist as long as the goal post is Pure capitalism and Pure Communism, Im in the middle. Not this 'western models' who have a very different experience and model, as I lean to Bernie Sander under their model.
Why im socialist is their is a 2 goal posts for me. Human desires and Human needs. Everything that is a need should be socialized and managed by the state universally such as the right to education and health, but also the right to 'food/water' security plus shelter right.
Needs doesn't mean you get to have the best steak or castle, but that society should work out what basic nutrition a human needs to be alive, if you want a steak or castle, u need to work for it, becuz those are not needs but desires. Even the right to a shelter in my view doesn't mean a beautiful villa or castle, but a basic shelter only and if you desire more then you work for it in the private market.
I also believe the economic policy of a country should balance the need of it's elites and investors to make profit and blossom but not trade it off to the extent it leads to no strong consumer base or middle class. I think this benefits both the investing class and consumers, if the consumers become richer, it trickles up-wards to make them wealthier, the pyramid structure won't change at all if that's what investor fears, in-fact you will grow even wealthier if all your market is spending and consuming and can lead to you developing consortiums to tap into other growing market areas.
In theory a govt able to have infinite amount of tax stream thru it's developed market should also lead to better infrastructure, social services.
Last edited:
