Vonsalza:
The first problem here is that they weren’t completely socialist. The central government still produced the Somali shilling during those years which is a problem for your position because strict socialist economies don’t use traditional currency (a la the Khmer Rouge).
The second is that if all socialist countries collapse into 30 years of anarchy, why is Somalia such a unique and enduring example of the phenomenon? Cuban “socialism” (if that’s what you want to call it despite the fact that they, too, have markets) is older and more enduring. Where’s their 30 years of lawlessness?
You standards seem to be rather “fluid” here, to use a more polite word.
No, north Korea collapsed, Yemen collapsed, Cambodia collapsed, Venezuela is collapsing and eventually Russia collapsed…
Gosh golly! If Somalia is an exemplar of what happens, why aren’t all the post soviet states still in a period of total chaos? It certainly happened at about the same time…
Again, you seem to have some fluidity here.
And as an aside, Russia didn’t collapse because of “socialism”, it collapsed because they were in a recession and were going to lean on increased fuel exports to fund their government at the time.
Reagan conspired with the Shah to keep oil prices low, leading to the default of the keystone of the communist block.
I don’t care what kind of government you have, if it doesn’t pay its bills it will fail. End of discussion.
Socialism leads to failing states. Failing states lead to war. Join the dots.
All sorts of things lead to war. It’s intellectually lazy to make your broad assertions here. The US declared war on Iraq. So were the US and Iraq failing at the time?
Revise your vague generalizations, please.
Collectivised does not mean socialism.
Yes it does.
Per Oxford Dictionary;
Socialism - A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Collectivism - The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system.
But I guess Oxford is wrong too, right? lol
If after all my words that is all you think I have said then you are clearly being dishonest with yourself.
I think it’s no fun when people disagree with me, too.
No you confuse government and collectivism for socialism.
No, you refuse to see them as practical synonyms.
Perhaps you have difficulty teasing apart socialism and communism? That might be the core issue with your rhetoric.
You know you hemorrhage credibility when you type nonsense like that, right?
