it was an essay that it's self referenced the black book of communism and talked about the limitations of that particular text; then went on to talk about other obscenely large figures of deaths at the hands of maoism from other sourcea. so yeah, the 70 million figure may have been incorrect, but that doesn't mean a lot of people didnt die.
i'm not getting into this conversation again though, i got banned last time, so dont reply expecting me to take the bait.
Just in general, the deaths argument is really bad. Under Mao Chinese life expectancy more than doubled - even if we take at face value the largest estimates for the famine, far, far more people lived longer, happier, and healthier lives as a result of Mao's policies than had their lives ended prematurely by them.
And that's before getting into the incredibly muddy waters of culpability - the famine was preceded by a drought, how many of the deaths then are the CPC's fault and how many are strictly the fault of nature? The CPC in part worsened the famine by implementing bad agricultural science - but they didn't know it was bad agricultural science at the time, should they be held responsible for it anyway? And so on and so on.
then went on to talk about other obscenely large figures of deaths at the hands of maoism from other sourcea.
Ending the practice of footbinding alone justifies every single thing Mao ever did. You don't even have to include the fact that life expectancy was 33 years old at the time of the revolution starting, or that it went UP during the revolution, during a period of 2 civil wars and a brutal fascist invasion, because the communists were still somehow improving more lives under those conditions. Life expectancy was in the 60s by Mao's death.
Did he make mistakes? Sure he did, he shouldn't have killed all the sparrows and the cultural revolution was kinda hit n miss mostly miss. But come the fuck on lifespans do not go UP while people's lives are getting worse, shorter, or whatever.
Footbinding on the other hand was a brutal horrific practicing affecting 50% of all poor women and 100% of rich women. For a thousand years. Holy shit yes Mao was justified.
This is ultra basic stuff mate you're better than this. 70% good, 30% bad. Overall an obviously positive effect on China. Taking "a lot of people died" out of context and into isolation instead of comparing it to how many people were already dying and how things improved is pure hog brained propaganda and you shouldn't fill your head with that method of looking at things, it's the analysis of a literal child or someone that is criminally thick.
So what was your source? Was it the black book of communism?
it was an essay that it's self referenced the black book of communism and talked about the limitations of that particular text; then went on to talk about other obscenely large figures of deaths at the hands of maoism from other sourcea. so yeah, the 70 million figure may have been incorrect, but that doesn't mean a lot of people didnt die.
i'm not getting into this conversation again though, i got banned last time, so dont reply expecting me to take the bait.
Just in general, the deaths argument is really bad. Under Mao Chinese life expectancy more than doubled - even if we take at face value the largest estimates for the famine, far, far more people lived longer, happier, and healthier lives as a result of Mao's policies than had their lives ended prematurely by them.
And that's before getting into the incredibly muddy waters of culpability - the famine was preceded by a drought, how many of the deaths then are the CPC's fault and how many are strictly the fault of nature? The CPC in part worsened the famine by implementing bad agricultural science - but they didn't know it was bad agricultural science at the time, should they be held responsible for it anyway? And so on and so on.
Ending the practice of footbinding alone justifies every single thing Mao ever did. You don't even have to include the fact that life expectancy was 33 years old at the time of the revolution starting, or that it went UP during the revolution, during a period of 2 civil wars and a brutal fascist invasion, because the communists were still somehow improving more lives under those conditions. Life expectancy was in the 60s by Mao's death.
Did he make mistakes? Sure he did, he shouldn't have killed all the sparrows and the cultural revolution was kinda hit n miss mostly miss. But come the fuck on lifespans do not go UP while people's lives are getting worse, shorter, or whatever.
Footbinding on the other hand was a brutal horrific practicing affecting 50% of all poor women and 100% of rich women. For a thousand years. Holy shit yes Mao was justified.
This is ultra basic stuff mate you're better than this. 70% good, 30% bad. Overall an obviously positive effect on China. Taking "a lot of people died" out of context and into isolation instead of comparing it to how many people were already dying and how things improved is pure hog brained propaganda and you shouldn't fill your head with that method of looking at things, it's the analysis of a literal child or someone that is criminally thick.
Helpful. Thanks for your input.