Mao, Jackson, ghengis Khan, all the same rung of hell.
Clown shit. China's life expectancy was 33 years old when Mao launched the revolution. The life expectancy went up DURING the civil war and the fascist invasion by Japan where they murdered millions of people... Because shit was so fucking bad that they could improve people's lives even during those conditions. Even that was an improvement over the prior situation.
By the time Mao was dead, it had risen to 61 years of age.
Did the man make some mistakes? Absolutely he did. But on balance he did far more good than bad through his mistakes and you are a clown for not seeing that.
You want hell? The 100 years of exploitation China went through under the British, American, French and other international bourgeoisie prior to Mao liberating the people. The liberals responsible for that 33 year life expectancy.
You're missing the point. Life expectancy doesn't go up unless you're better than what came before. The point is that even with his mistakes, the people before him were killing far far more.
The issue is that you look at these things and never compare to what came before. You look at them in a vacuum. You have no concept of what development over time is, what process is involved with improving and developing a country. You isolate these events and strip them of their historical context for the purposes of misunderstanding them and miseducating others.
Awoo, they are literally incapable of seeing that point.
You're completely right - an increase of life expectancy even in the face of that famine means that the human suffering would have been FAR WORSE without the communists, but it would NEVER have been discussed as a point against Capitalism.
I know that but you never know who's here lurking, listening, and learning. We were at 500 average users per day a week ago and we're at 650 right now, this federation stuff has caused many new people to find us and I am certain that a lot of them are in the learning phase.
You don't say fuck em all though. You specifically focus upon communist leaders while ignoring that communists are responsible for undoing the horrible exploitation that liberal leaders were doing. You ignore the vast improvements communists consistently bring, and use their past mistakes to argue against communists wanting to bring further improvements to existing society.
We on the other hand recognise that communists by and large brought improvement to the societies they succeeded in, and we understand that by and large communists would bring improvement to the societies of today. Will they be perfect? Fuck no. We're not utopians. But it is incredibly easy to improve people's lives by taking all the resources currently being exploited out of people and into the pockets of Musk and the rest of the bourgeoisie and instead putting it to use improving the lives of the people.
You have built your identity around upholding the status quo rather than improving people's lives, and that is why you spend the majority of your time focused on judging communists as bad in historical isolation devoid of context, rather than liberals being bad. You defend and uphold liberal exploitation.
Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions [...] that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.
50m+ is highly disputed. The numbers range anywhere from 10-30m excess deaths in a 3 year time period. With some of those metrics counting the inverted birthrate towards death.
This is nothing out of the ordinary for developing nations, famine caused by mismanagement of agricultural land during industrialization happened in the US too, the dust bowl was a direct result of poor agricultural planning. The USSR experienced this as well, and India experienced it repeatedly.
Though India is the odd one out with the British famine protocols to basically allow mass death to keep grain prices steady. When they became a Republic they continued to experience famine for decades while China and Russia only had the one. Same as the US. Because all those countries had independence and were able to alter course and change policy to prevent it from happening again. While colonial nations and neo-colonial states were still being ruled under the old British famine laws.
Industrialization is a terrible thing to go through, and the pre-socialist states that attempted it took a century or more to build up their productive capacity and the whole time we're going through constant famine as laboring power was shifting from agriculture to industry and development was eating up farmland.
The fact that China and Russia made it through that stage in under 50 years is a testament to the power of central planning.
I actually kinda agree with them that mismanagement of agricultural policy and intentional starving of colonial subjects for profit are two different things.
One is (or was) an inevitability of the transition from subsistence/feudal society to industrial society as the agricultural output failed to keep up with the outflow of agricultural labor to industrial labor. Usually bolstered by collapses in grain trade between more established markets in developing nations.
The genocide was to prevent famine within the imperial core. The grain shortages were more pronounced in England so their solution was to starve their subjects to protect the profitable labor within England itself.
Even worse was that there was shortage, but at any given point there was enough grain to prevent famin. But distributing that grain would destabilize the grain price and throw the imperial financial markets into chaos as grain was meant to be a stable investment.
So millions die to protect the line. Nothing ever changes.
Yeah, because the was a shortage, but they need to keep grain price stable. If they didn't stockpile and allowed India to keep all the grain they needed to avert famine there would have been starvation in England.
I'm no big historian in this topic, but I know that British policy was based on Smith's idea that grain prices need to remain stable. Which is why they stockpiled during famine in the periphery.
An Indian historian on the Great Famine in China:
She wrote in an essay that "[t]he figure of 30 million has passed into popular folklore ... The fact that 19 million of them never existed because they were never born in the first place is not conveyed by the formulation." She criticized the equating of China's "missing millions" with famine deaths, rather than people who were never born due to declining birth rates. Also she claimed that "Because the internal political developments in China after 1978 were in the direction of attacking Maoist egalitarianism and the commune system, no repudiation from Chinese sources of the US estimates are to be seen". Patnaik concluded that the figures were ideologically derived in attempts to discredit communism, while similar excessive deaths in 1990s Russia, following the collapse of the USSR, were routinely ignored.
Be clear: I'm not advocating imperialism, but there is a certain difference between killing millions of people through displacement, and killing millions of YOUR OWN PEOPLE through idiocy.
You draw some form of distinction between "own people" and I'm assuming "not your own people" here with the intent of somehow conflating famine with a literal intentional and organized genocide with the connotation that the lives of "not your own people" are less valuable.
In fact you aren't just conflating those two, you're using the idea that killing your "own people" is somehow worse than genociding people outside your group.
You're literally making an identical argument to the Nazis.
Mao, Jackson, ghengis Khan, all the same rung of hell.
That's not what you implied though. Saying "Mao is worse because he did it to his own people" is tantamount to running defense for Andrew fucking Jackson. Backpedaling to a "anti-authoritarian" (lol right) both sides suck stance is coward shit.
Also "whataboutism" is just a thought terminating cliché designed to stop liberals like you from experiencing cognitive dissonance and forming some semblance of a coherent worldview. It's not a "trick" to point out double standards and historical context.
lol during Mao's tenure China's life expectancy doubled
not that you give a shit about the truth value of anything you're saying
The kitten-burners seem to fulfill some urgent need. They give us someone
we can clearly and correctly say we’re better than. Their extravagant
cruelty makes us feel better about ourselves because we know that we
would never do what they have done. They thus function as signposts of
depravity, reassuring the rest of us that we’re Not As Bad As them, and
thus letting us tell ourselves that this is the same thing as us being
good.
IIRC in the old chapo sub posts about Amber caused heated discussion, the predictable nature of which was mocked by a bot that replied "Amber." to every occurance of the word, regardless of context. Or at least that's my read on it, it's kind of an inscrutable bit.
If hating imperial conquest the world over makes me a running dog for imperialists, great, I guess.
Andrew Jackson and mao are 69ing each other right now.
Further, I can separately acknowledge that an authoritarian imperialist like mao is an embarrassment to his club by own-goaling his own people unlike anyone else on the planet lol
He fostered the power of the state, collaborated in systems to deplatform and imprison his own people without crime, and engaged in war in korea (acknowledged that china's help was requested, but war outside of own borders is imperial conflict). That makes you an imperialist in nature.
(acknowledged that china's help was requested, but war outside of own borders is imperial conflict)
So when Allied troops were marching in Berlin after Hitler blew his brains out, this is Allies imperialism against Germany? This doesn't even make sense from a liberal understanding of history lmao
This isn't imperialism. Note that I didn't argue about the authoritarian angle. Claiming that Mao is an imperialist is an insane stretch, even by the new standards I've been seeing liberals use it for.
Also, really the Korean war fits the bill? You should spend more time reading about what happened in the "forgotten war", what was happening in South Korea and what the US did to the North Koreans as part of that conflict. Blowback did a good season on it, but I think the thing I find particularly odd about you referencing it as Chinese imperialism is neglecting to acknowledge the entire US involvement in that conflict.
In all honesty you would be better off citing the invasion of Tibet (but even then a coursory reading and understanding of the theocratic fuedalistic state that existed there before this should really dispell a lot of nonsense).
Imperialism is the subordination of external markets for the extractive benefit of an overlord class in the core
It requires total control over a nation's foreign, legal, financial and military policy to undertake a conscious and planned underdevelopment and deindustrialization policy
Its also requires centralization of local capital in imperial hands, export of said capital to the core, tiers of citizenship, unequal legal rights, enclosure movements, enforced segregation and racialization of populations
None of that describes Mao's China, but it does describe the majority of euro/anglo states during the twentieth century
Removed by mod
Clown shit. China's life expectancy was 33 years old when Mao launched the revolution. The life expectancy went up DURING the civil war and the fascist invasion by Japan where they murdered millions of people... Because shit was so fucking bad that they could improve people's lives even during those conditions. Even that was an improvement over the prior situation.
By the time Mao was dead, it had risen to 61 years of age.
Did the man make some mistakes? Absolutely he did. But on balance he did far more good than bad through his mistakes and you are a clown for not seeing that.
You want hell? The 100 years of exploitation China went through under the British, American, French and other international bourgeoisie prior to Mao liberating the people. The liberals responsible for that 33 year life expectancy.
The dude killed 50mil plus of his own people, via his idiocy. He can't take credit for life expectancy and not take blame for the needless deaths.
Clearly we disagree but I think one invalidates the other.
As reference, consider this source
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1302736/global-life-expectancy-by-region-country-historical/
China's rise is obviously a good thing, but is similar to many other nations.
You're missing the point. Life expectancy doesn't go up unless you're better than what came before. The point is that even with his mistakes, the people before him were killing far far more.
The issue is that you look at these things and never compare to what came before. You look at them in a vacuum. You have no concept of what development over time is, what process is involved with improving and developing a country. You isolate these events and strip them of their historical context for the purposes of misunderstanding them and miseducating others.
deleted by creator
Awoo, they are literally incapable of seeing that point.
You're completely right - an increase of life expectancy even in the face of that famine means that the human suffering would have been FAR WORSE without the communists, but it would NEVER have been discussed as a point against Capitalism.
I know that but you never know who's here lurking, listening, and learning. We were at 500 average users per day a week ago and we're at 650 right now, this federation stuff has caused many new people to find us and I am certain that a lot of them are in the learning phase.
You defend authoritarian leaders of your favorite flavor, I say fuck em all.
You don't say fuck em all though. You specifically focus upon communist leaders while ignoring that communists are responsible for undoing the horrible exploitation that liberal leaders were doing. You ignore the vast improvements communists consistently bring, and use their past mistakes to argue against communists wanting to bring further improvements to existing society.
We on the other hand recognise that communists by and large brought improvement to the societies they succeeded in, and we understand that by and large communists would bring improvement to the societies of today. Will they be perfect? Fuck no. We're not utopians. But it is incredibly easy to improve people's lives by taking all the resources currently being exploited out of people and into the pockets of Musk and the rest of the bourgeoisie and instead putting it to use improving the lives of the people.
You have built your identity around upholding the status quo rather than improving people's lives, and that is why you spend the majority of your time focused on judging communists as bad in historical isolation devoid of context, rather than liberals being bad. You defend and uphold liberal exploitation.
from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/
yet to see you say fuck em about any genocidal authoritarian cappies so far
As in capitalists?
Im not discussing economic styles, I'm discussing genocide, nation states, etc.
But if you need the magic words to finish or whatever fuck Henry Ford he was a Nazi
Can we get a fuck em all for Ukraine then?
deleted by creator
Communists hate him for this one weird trick
"I say fuck em all (but I will do extensive mental gymnastics to justify why genocidal fascists are better than communists)
I say fuck you and everything you believe in.
50m+ is highly disputed. The numbers range anywhere from 10-30m excess deaths in a 3 year time period. With some of those metrics counting the inverted birthrate towards death.
This is nothing out of the ordinary for developing nations, famine caused by mismanagement of agricultural land during industrialization happened in the US too, the dust bowl was a direct result of poor agricultural planning. The USSR experienced this as well, and India experienced it repeatedly.
Though India is the odd one out with the British famine protocols to basically allow mass death to keep grain prices steady. When they became a Republic they continued to experience famine for decades while China and Russia only had the one. Same as the US. Because all those countries had independence and were able to alter course and change policy to prevent it from happening again. While colonial nations and neo-colonial states were still being ruled under the old British famine laws.
Industrialization is a terrible thing to go through, and the pre-socialist states that attempted it took a century or more to build up their productive capacity and the whole time we're going through constant famine as laboring power was shifting from agriculture to industry and development was eating up farmland.
The fact that China and Russia made it through that stage in under 50 years is a testament to the power of central planning.
Everytime someone tries to educate a lib, the number of victims of communism goes up by a million.
deleted by creator
Oops forgot that time the British starved, as this user would call them, "their own people".
The British would NEVER consider those their own people. So they get a pass!
Not a horrific intentional genocide, nope!
deleted by creator
I actually kinda agree with them that mismanagement of agricultural policy and intentional starving of colonial subjects for profit are two different things.
One is (or was) an inevitability of the transition from subsistence/feudal society to industrial society as the agricultural output failed to keep up with the outflow of agricultural labor to industrial labor. Usually bolstered by collapses in grain trade between more established markets in developing nations.
The other is genocide.
deleted by creator
The genocide was to prevent famine within the imperial core. The grain shortages were more pronounced in England so their solution was to starve their subjects to protect the profitable labor within England itself.
Even worse was that there was shortage, but at any given point there was enough grain to prevent famin. But distributing that grain would destabilize the grain price and throw the imperial financial markets into chaos as grain was meant to be a stable investment.
So millions die to protect the line. Nothing ever changes.
deleted by creator
Yeah, because the was a shortage, but they need to keep grain price stable. If they didn't stockpile and allowed India to keep all the grain they needed to avert famine there would have been starvation in England.
deleted by creator
I'm no big historian in this topic, but I know that British policy was based on Smith's idea that grain prices need to remain stable. Which is why they stockpiled during famine in the periphery.
deleted by creator
Yeah, consistent English colonial policy.
Stop editing your fucking comments after I've responded already
Removed by mod
An Indian historian on the Great Famine in China: She wrote in an essay that "[t]he figure of 30 million has passed into popular folklore ... The fact that 19 million of them never existed because they were never born in the first place is not conveyed by the formulation." She criticized the equating of China's "missing millions" with famine deaths, rather than people who were never born due to declining birth rates. Also she claimed that "Because the internal political developments in China after 1978 were in the direction of attacking Maoist egalitarianism and the commune system, no repudiation from Chinese sources of the US estimates are to be seen". Patnaik concluded that the figures were ideologically derived in attempts to discredit communism, while similar excessive deaths in 1990s Russia, following the collapse of the USSR, were routinely ignored.
The CIA literally carry out operations in Communist countries to cause famines. This is all public record, they've admitted it openly.
Spreading animal and plant diseases into the agricultural system solely to hurt people that dare to break away from Capitalism.
Why would that be necessary if Communists = no food?
deleted by creator
You draw some form of distinction between "own people" and I'm assuming "not your own people" here with the intent of somehow conflating famine with a literal intentional and organized genocide with the connotation that the lives of "not your own people" are less valuable.
In fact you aren't just conflating those two, you're using the idea that killing your "own people" is somehow worse than genociding people outside your group.
You're literally making an identical argument to the Nazis.
Notice that this fascist POS ignores the comments like yours, that call him out for what he is.
not to mention it was the last famine in a long line of famines for thousands of years
That's not what you implied though. Saying "Mao is worse because he did it to his own people" is tantamount to running defense for Andrew fucking Jackson. Backpedaling to a "anti-authoritarian" (lol right) both sides suck stance is coward shit.
Also "whataboutism" is just a thought terminating cliché designed to stop liberals like you from experiencing cognitive dissonance and forming some semblance of a coherent worldview. It's not a "trick" to point out double standards and historical context.
lol during Mao's tenure China's life expectancy doubled
not that you give a shit about the truth value of anything you're saying
from https://redsails.org/false-witnesses/
Aha, I was looking for this article a while ago and couldn't remember what it was called. Thanks!
That growth occured in many other countries too.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1302736/global-life-expectancy-by-region-country-historical/
All leaders of his type are shit.
no, you're comparing a 200 year period to a 30 year period
not that you give a shit about the truth value of anything you're saying
deleted by creator
So what you're saying is Mao accomplished in one generation what took the rest of the world 200 years?
This is so dishonest, I think even you realize it.
Hey @GBU_28@lemm.ee post hog
America bad, china bad, but you oughta post the original comment I called out. Doesn't really matter though.
Andrew Jackson was a monster, and so was mao.
Neither country "elevated humanity" or whatever, and never will.
Cya!
Hey @GBU_28@lemm.ee how does it feel to be a running dog for imperialists?
Amber.
deleted by creator
I do not understand this bit.
IIRC in the old chapo sub posts about Amber caused heated discussion, the predictable nature of which was mocked by a bot that replied "Amber." to every occurance of the word, regardless of context. Or at least that's my read on it, it's kind of an inscrutable bit.
Amber.
If hating imperial conquest the world over makes me a running dog for imperialists, great, I guess.
Andrew Jackson and mao are 69ing each other right now.
Further, I can separately acknowledge that an authoritarian imperialist like mao is an embarrassment to his club by own-goaling his own people unlike anyone else on the planet lol
How was mao an imperialist?
He fostered the power of the state, collaborated in systems to deplatform and imprison his own people without crime, and engaged in war in korea (acknowledged that china's help was requested, but war outside of own borders is imperial conflict). That makes you an imperialist in nature.
So when Allied troops were marching in Berlin after Hitler blew his brains out, this is Allies imperialism against Germany? This doesn't even make sense from a liberal understanding of history lmao
I don't think that person has a liberal understanding of history, there's at least some firmly lodged fascist brainworms at play as well.
deleted by creator
This isn't imperialism. Note that I didn't argue about the authoritarian angle. Claiming that Mao is an imperialist is an insane stretch, even by the new standards I've been seeing liberals use it for.
Also, really the Korean war fits the bill? You should spend more time reading about what happened in the "forgotten war", what was happening in South Korea and what the US did to the North Koreans as part of that conflict. Blowback did a good season on it, but I think the thing I find particularly odd about you referencing it as Chinese imperialism is neglecting to acknowledge the entire US involvement in that conflict.
In all honesty you would be better off citing the invasion of Tibet (but even then a coursory reading and understanding of the theocratic fuedalistic state that existed there before this should really dispell a lot of nonsense).
tbh I thought he'd go with the occupation of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. Absolutely wild take about the Korean War and wars generally.
The power of the state fucking rules when it throws clowns like you into the pit
Real clown hours who up
lmao real baby-brained shit
You literally dont know what imperialism is
Imperialism is the subordination of external markets for the extractive benefit of an overlord class in the core
It requires total control over a nation's foreign, legal, financial and military policy to undertake a conscious and planned underdevelopment and deindustrialization policy
Its also requires centralization of local capital in imperial hands, export of said capital to the core, tiers of citizenship, unequal legal rights, enclosure movements, enforced segregation and racialization of populations
None of that describes Mao's China, but it does describe the majority of euro/anglo states during the twentieth century
deleted by creator
Do you think it would have been better for China to leave Korea to be destroyed by America?
deleted by creator
Ok so you are now defending America's attempted genocide of the Korean peninsula. Great