Somalis Are U Capitalist Or Communist

[DR OSMAN]

If you guys had to choose a side and forget the current 'moderation' between which is termed liberal and conservative as they try to bring both extreme ideas into a 'center' and diverge into right or left from that 'center' on market issues with the right more towards ogligarchy and left more towards govt control, but if the world did split on the idea your either pure capitalist or pure communist and there is no middle ground you can choose, which would u take?

Would you take this scenario

Capitalist - Richest Dawg takes the whole GDP of the nation thru domination of all production areas and a vicious targetted acquisitions or merges of any start up in the nation so the majority of wealth stays concentrated into very 'few' hands and therefore an 'ogligarchy' develops. This means the rest of the population would only be given enough money for food and water to survive and the entire nation is either 'top rich' and 'bottom' and no in between remember since there is no 'center or moderation' between them in liberal/conservative yet.

Communist - The complete GDP is in the hand of the people thru their 'govt' having ownership of all production areas and then spreading the wealth out evenly into the nation with no 'rich or poor' just one 'class of people' only. In other words if u need to envision what this means, it means taking all America 18 trillion dollars and splitting it up into 'chunks' per 'villages' and 'per town' and assigning them the nations wealth.

So this means u will see this large vault of gold of 18 trillion dollars worth and it's controlled by the govt since they own all the production points and no-one owns anything. Imagine that was divided into chunks of 50k for each person or 7 billion for every tuulo of 2500, u will start to see on america map their gold/money pool all broken down into chunks and assigned thru population quotas to see the wealth spread to each corner of the nation down to town and village and city, u won't hear anymore of poverty but u also won't hear anymore 'I am rich' since everyone has the same portion of the national wealth. It's truly financial class-less system just like they created class-less identity thru republicanism and citizenship being the 'class' and removing the old world system, which I disagree with strongly but not so much their economic 'view' even tho it is a bit 'extreme'

Which one would u guys take and do not argue from a point both won't work either or they have proven to fail due to application, I am saying philosophically if u had to choose a side and you were guaranteed the application would work, what would u be? I would probably be a communist if it came down philosophy and there was no chance of 'govt power corruption'. But since I fear an all powerful govt with too much concentrated wealth, this doesn't mean I would swing towards an 'ogligarch with too much wealth either' or a few consortiums and groups owning the nation wealth which I consider just as bad.

I can understand why most nations are sitting on the 'center' now of the divide of too much power into business and govt not being supported and ppl only swinging to one side or another on 'certain' areas only and not complete 'paradigm' shift into full communist or full capitalism and therefore their now center right or center left majority of nations regarding 'market' philosophy however they are 'right or left' on other social matters

 

[DR OSMAN]

My assessment clan wise is this

Capitalist clans would definitely be

Majerten who doesn't like this idea of financial classless society, infact they don't like this idea of a nation that is even republican and all Somalis are citizens everywhere. This is very conservative view of keeping the old world order alive thru saldanads and also it's natural 'class' based society. They work within 'republican' structure not satisfied untill 'saldanad' historical clans are constantly the rulers of the 'hordes' in their view, which is why I tell them you might change the head of state to the monarchy and not worry about an all powerful govt in either the regions or center as their duties will be further limited into carrying out services not making large decisions without head of state approval.

Abgaals - This clan tends to be capitalist but not the same type as Majerten in PL which is grounded in old world style of governance thru saldanad, captalismkisa waa sida 'kismaayo' style ama 'kistada' iyo 'shaksinimo' where everyone is a total individual and can amass as much wealth they want, they don't seem loyal to the old world saldanad nor it's class based society thru clan and prefer qof walbo iyo tiisa.

HG/Marehan- Very shuuci as f*ck you can tell how HG 'share' power in GM and also they introduced 4.5 nation-wide with lots of protest from u guessed it? the old world boys kkkk, I also believe they would be supporter of financial shuucinimo thru 4.5 if they could pass it thru as national economic law or they will be largely in parties that call for hanti-wadaag kkkkk. Marehan is the same with siyad barre supporter of this and they are also till this day.

Isaaq - They are said to be more 'capitalists' like Majerten/Abgaal but they are very 'socially liberal' and like to 'share' what they have to lift up their people so this doesn't mean he wants to split his money but he will throw u some scraps to get yourself started, so u would assume they would form a large party of 'social liberal' camp with DR Osman also a believer in this economic philosophy even though I diverge on issues of 'head of state' to the 'saldanad' camp and not the 'republican camp'.

 

[Octavian]

Whats ur thoughts on a mixed economy or something similar to the Scandinavian nations have

 

[DR OSMAN]

Whats ur thoughts on a mixed economy or something similar to the Scandinavian nations have

That's the word I was looking for the CENTER now is called 'mixed' economy from communist and capitalist idealism that has converged into 'mix' as you said of social liberalism vs conservatism, that mix of communist/capitalist has created conservatism/liberalism or center right center left and the 'center' means a consensus an all powerful business class and weak govt isn't desired nor is an all powerful govt and weak business class desired. So now the shifts happen from that center or 'mixed' stage and it comes down to individual issues that determines if they swing to the left or right of that 'mixed' shit that u just said

 

[Drago]

you cant be communist in a world that rejects hard thanks to dominant super power
even with the USSR being how it was failed. Cuba got shunned for decades
China learned a lesson after the collapse and tied itself economically with the supply chain and trade of the damn world unlike the USSR which was only military
But us? we tried that shit already

 

[Octavian]

That's the word I was looking for the CENTER now is called 'mixed' economy from communist and capitalist idealism that has converged into 'mix' as you said of social liberalism vs conservatism, that mix of communist/capitalist has created conservatism/liberalism or center right center left and the 'center' means a consensus an all powerful business class and weak govt isn't desired nor is an all powerful govt and weak business class desired. So now the shifts happen from that center or 'mixed' stage and it comes down to individual issues that determines if they swing to the left or right of that 'mixed' shit that u just said

Do u think its possible to implement a mixed economic system in Somalia ?

 

[DR OSMAN]

Whats ur thoughts on a mixed economy or something similar to the Scandinavian nations have

When you say 'mixed' economy it's direct result of mish-mashing communist/capitalism that has resulted in the following 'mix' you like 'lower-middle-rich' with the wealth spread across and not contained either at the 'top' with capitalism does or everyone from the lower-rich eliminated for 'uniform middle' as the communist promoted thru national wealth re-distribution on population quota evenly by the govt for the people.

So now you admit you sit on the 'center' like everyone does even this prick does @Farjano-Walad but his arguing for that 'top' class to expand and concentrate wealth further as he believes it leads to some sort of trickle down effect kkkkk when all we observed it leads to is 'offshoring' because consumption hasn't changed for 'trickle' down to work and create production. These guys are center-right of the economic philosophy today and known as conservatives and their various 'flavors' of them also extreme n moderate.

Where-as we economic liberals gave up on the idea of 'one wealth class just middle' and no poor-rich class as it led to dilemma with an all powerful govt and created a 'problem' within that camp to go away from that philosophical directon but they do not shy away that their economic policy is grounded in 'shifting lower to middle' class at all costs and then increasing the 'middle' national wealth so it remains the engine of the nation thru 'harsh taxes' on the 'top' so they do not over-saturate every industry with merges/acquisition and taking far larger share of the national wealth that leads to the lower-middle getting poorer and heading towards that ogligarchy that we don't support.

 

[Revolutionary]

I'd definitely say capitalism

 

[DR OSMAN]

I'd definitely say capitalism

Well enjoy Somalia that's purely capitalism with upper rich and poor and no middle since their is no govt intervention to create one, this leads to your nation's production being smaller then a nation with strong middle leading to consumption power and larger business response, in-fact it's those mixed economy nations with limited lower class and large middle class and limited rich class that provide charity to your capitalist nation of strong upper class and strong lower class(70%) in your case on 1 dollar a day while your upper class has concentrated wealth to only a 'few thousand' people which won't lead to much consumption from such a small pool of people. That's why your employees are cheapest in the world also since the wealth isn't spread out to lead to competition on labour prices.

 

[Revolutionary]

Well enjoy Somalia that's purely capitalism with upper rich and poor and no middle since their is no govt intervention to create one, this leads to your nation's production being smaller then a nation with strong middle leading to consumption, in-fact it's those nations that provide charity to your capitalist nation

Why would it not lead to any middle class? Why just rich and poor?

 

[Karim]

I'm a firm believer in Islamic economics that takes a middle ground between the systems of Marxism and capitalism.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Why would it not lead to any middle class? Why just rich and poor?

When wealth is concentrated into a few hands and they have their hand in all pies of the economy, this also means they don't have competitors since they either swallow them up thru acquisitions or bare minimum of merges which is common practise. They will take all the production side of economy for the 'richest' and pool with other 'rich' people and share the spoils thru investors, this eventually leads to what? it leads to workers fighting for jobs from the same employer basically or group of consortium and they have no reason to set wages above 'hand to mouth' like the industrial age as the govt is purely weak like u see in Somalia with no intervention even though their using the nations land to make wealth and they simply buy out the govt and ensure laws are passed to restrict competition, no company want's competition bro, it's against business philosophy and if their all powerful then the days of competing for jobs are over.

That's why strong govt is critical with oversight and law making ability to ensure this outcome doesn't happen and unions are also another tool to boycot your labour on large scale was mainly the reason for the middle class creation, it didn't come thru the love of capitalist that's for sure.

 

[Revolutionary]

@DR OSMAN What about eliminating all tariffs/restrictions on foreign trade and allowing international goods to come in to prevent domestic monopolies from happening, wouldn't that help stop wealth being concentrated into a few as there is more competition?

 

[DR OSMAN]

I'm a firm believer in Islamic economics that takes a middle ground between the systems of Marxism and capitalism.

Islamic economics kulaha or rasul philosophy kkkk doesn't lead to a middle-class and never did, they always had and supported 'free market' and only ensuring the 'poor were covered thru welfare' on measly 2% zakat rate which ensures their feed and housed at best. It didn't encourage that wealth be contained in the 'middle' as that developed thru marxism/capitalist merging on this 'mixed' state where there is lower-upper-rich class, where-as Islamic economics only leads to rich-poor with 2% zakat rate to ensure their poverty isn't unbearable.

There is no indications that Islamic economics stops an 'ogligarchy' to develop by taking a slice out of all the pie in the economy and ensuring it stays with limited upper echelon of society. Islamic economics never set land subsidies to make housing affordable, it left that all in the hands of the ogligarchs to decide and that's why they looked no different to the peasantry and ultra rich class that developed in the old european world which pressured 'karl marx' to come up with his all liberating economic classless society that constituted only a middle and no poor or rich thru govt ownership of all production of the economy and doing 'hanti wadaag' with society to eliminate any poverty class emerging and stopping an upper rich class forming thru re-distribution of all wealth by population quotas.

The only thing marx didn't account for was that power/wealth itself being contained into 'few hands' at the govt level was corrupting but the idea itself was one of economic liberation for the masses and the idealogy was beautiful irrespective if it wasn't practical due to human corruption.

I am marxist by heart, it sounds very appealing people are all equal in wealth but rationality is what stops me from mentally believing in it. Just like Islam it sounds all good emotionally to me but my mental reasoning makes me disbelief not my heart

If only the world was about emotions I would be a marxist and muslim jannah lover but I am not a man of emotions but purely stoic like this at all time

When people use emotions to create an argument or decision, a stoic person simply do not make decisions on emotions and that's probably why I am not commy but I would love it to be 'practical' if their was't that element of human corruption in power/wealth contained into a few hands.

Stocism means my 'mind' and 'reasoning' make up my decisions not my conscious bias, desires or emotions. So Islamic economics please stop with that im just to STOIC for Islam to work on.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Islam is no different to Communism it requires you to stop 'critically' thinking or your using reasoning and analysis, it requires just an emotional desire such as fear of death which is the fear emotion, wanting another life of joy which is the desire effect, the last tool it uses to swallow u up is 'ignorance' it points to the world around you and says I can tell you who created that and it was Allah but notice it requires 'ignorance' first as pre-requisite kkkkk, now that we have 'science, maths, physics, nature' grounding our mental rationale, Islam is slowly dying away from the educated portion of society, it's only left with the ignorant and those who lack mathamatic-scientific-naturalist mind-set or the emotionally driven(fear of death, desire of next life) irrespective if their educated or not they need that emotional aspect at all times to believe in Islam, and finally the last ones who hold onto Islam are those who just want to conform to the majority like a sheep, those ones who will flip flop where-ever the herds are so their belief isn't grounded in belief/disbelief it's grounded in herd mentality. A big majority of Somalis fall into that camp the herd mentality of Islam and the ones who really believe in it fall into the either ignorant class or emotional desire class such as fear of death, hellfire, desire of heaven all grounded in emotions.

 

[Kingmufasa]

Im more capitalist then communist. That's why I believe the only way to save somalia is through the private sector. SOMALIA'S biggest problem i believe is that the help is gonna come from the outside, and even though remittance money has helped our loved ones at home its created this reliant environment. I remember going back and these niggas just sleeping all day and they up all night cafeing and chewing qaad. Also this donor mentality gotta go aswell because ""the person that feeds you controls you."" Finally im a diaspora but I believe diaspora should be banned from running for electable offices anyway sorry for going on a tangent but I knew some people who died in the blast yesterday and I always feel helpless and feel like giving up on somalia after this shit happen.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@DR OSMAN What about eliminating all tariffs/restrictions on foreign trade and allowing international goods to come in to prevent domestic monopolies from happening, wouldn't that help stop wealth being concentrated into a few as there is more competition?

As liberal economist believers we encourage 'free trade and free market' we want that wealth 'diversified' so it doesn't lead to an oligarchy or concentrated into few hands, since what can happen when a few individuals or consortium of investors have large wealth, they simply buy out all the ports-airports-roads-electricity-water-land-communication they will continue to sit there and amass all this wealth thru market infrastructure control and then begin 'acquisition' rounds of any emerging competitor or new industry and ensure they take a slice out of all production pies of the nation which leads the 'top class' to grow and grow 'concentrated' not diverse.

It doesn't lead to any competition as they have the financial power to stop it thru merges or acquisitions since they have the most wealth anyone below them will suffer the 'big dawg effect' and get swallowed up so they don't join this small 1% club that has 99% of the economic production in it's hand. It leads to wages dropping since every business is owned by them either thru partnership or they add it into their 'market portfolio'.

They will know u can't bargain higher wages since their either dominating every other market space or have a hand in it thru merges. They will dictate your wage and the lowest denominator is where it begins not the highest kkkkk. Infact it would make no sense for them to pay u anymore then buying food leading to only an 'agriculture' economy which obviously they will also own kkkk thru their land assets in their ogligarch portfolio. It will lead to a nation like Somalia with nothing but agriculture industries to keep people alive only and ogligarchs owning all the production points of the economy either thru imports/water/electricity/land assets they will develop a 'large portfolio' and start to group their holdings into various 'sector profiles' lol.

Free trade is definitely a liberal economic policy as we want diversity in business and competitors with no restrictions and fear a concentrated business class can lead to them using the govt to do market intervention either thru competitor removal. We want a strong business class just not one that is concentrated into the 'few' but the 'many' and is federalized itself and has differing priorities and interests so it doesn't lead to them forming powerful interest groups that corrupts the govt itself for their business interest, it could be thru lowering taxes, wages, conditions, rules, un-cappi industry ownership ratios, etc. Since they will have more wealth then the govt itself, this isn't a good outcome whatsoever in the govt having any power anymore. The govt needs to be the 'top dawg' and 'taxation' must be their mode of production to ensure they do have the largest slice in the 'economy' and the rest of society fall into the low-middle-rich class. Parties are simply debating on how large each bracket in their mixed economy is with the conservatives wanting that 1% club to get stronger and liberals wanting that low-middle class being stronger.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Revolutionary So where do u sit on the 'center' the left or right? since there is no communism or capitalism allowed in it's pure form in the western world today even tho the center left n right are trying to swing it towards that outcome with the center left wanting the bulk of wealth in the middle and lower class shifted thru redistribution by the top wealth group and the center right wanting the top class to get richer thru tax cuts

They center left also want land subsidization for the lower class, job creation, wage laws, unions, they want to ensure this lower-middle bracket form the engine of the nation and the rich are 'small thin group that is diverse in it's portfolio' and don't own to large a share of the pie in concentrated manner. They also promote free trade and no restrictions so this 'rich class' becomes flooded with diversity so it leads to competition between them and not 'alliances'.

A bill gates is rich as f*ck but his interest is investment into education where-as jeff bezos is rich as f*ck but his priority is the pool of unskilled grows so he can lower the wages on them. The more they are diverse like this thru free trade and free market and no concentration of wealth the healthier we believe it is for middle-lower and also 'govt' as not one of them will have the power to dominate the govt as the other will stop them thru backing different parties that support their policy.

Most of the 'capitalist' in America except for the mineral resources-amazon or low skilled worker industries are in the hand of companies that demand and require skills and therefore they will always favor a party that increases this pool of skills ratio to unskilled or else it effects their profits as the skilled market thins they need to pay more but if it blossoms they can pay less. So their intentions are not grounded in worker love themselves but due to their interest not being held hostage to skill shortage as it has an effect on wages skyrocketing due to scarcity and if your employing a large base of people, that's potential millions or billions in just wages alone not to mention taxes, it does add up and cut into revenue.

 

[Revolutionary]

I'd say economically I'm more towards the right in the sense of believing in the free market with some regulations and free trade to limit the amount of monopolies, i do think that people need to make the distinction between crony/hypercapitalism from the other types, because it's not one size fits all. In terms of left wing economics a lot of it, just like with left wing social policies sound nice on paper but would not work out the way they'd hope in reality. I see better solutions to a lot of economic issues through policies seen as "right" winged. @DR OSMAN

 

[DR OSMAN]

I'd say economically I'm more towards the right in the sense of believing in the free market with some regulations and free trade to limit the amount of monopolies, i do think that people need to make the distinction between crony/hypercapitalism from the other types, because it's not one size fits all. In terms of left wing economics a lot of it, just like with left wing social policies sound nice on paper but would not work out the way they'd hope in reality. I see better solutions to a lot of economic issues through policies seen as "right" winged. @DR OSMAN

I think you don't understand what right wing means at all, maybe you support them due to being anti social or trying to be 'different' and not really understanding what they promote. You said they promote a free market, no they don't. A Business person worst scenario is a free market, just like trump proved, he wants that shit locked away from competition thru global sanctions, his following in right wing thinking not to diversify business and keep it locked to the current 1% to own and service.

A Free market is totally one of the reasons why the right wing formed dude in the early days go listen to their historical founding, so they can close down market thru protectionism for the business elites. What your saying makes no business sense arguing a bunch of business people would support having their industries shared with other business people. This maybe what 'charity' do and share but there is no idea of sharing the market in business nor would they support a market that promotes such scenario.

It is thru govt intervention such as free market, industry capping, high taxation that led to companies steppng away from industry domination and wealth accumulation as they knew it wud just end up getting redistributed. These a liberal economic dude, free market, high taxation, and industry capping philosophy so it doesn't get concentrated into few consortiums owning a large share of the GDP.

I suggest maybe u really need to study what u support and don't go off the media hype about conservatives cuz it sounds 'rebel' 'cool' thing to do just like I would suggest u don't follow into the mosque total traditional understaanding of Islam that is soledly grounded from colonialism.