The Chinese communism revolution killed a shit lot of peoples. I hate capitalism but you have to be objective .also there were less comunism countries to begin with so yeah you can do what you want with statistics but its worth nothing more than a cry/Chad wojack
If we are to be 100% objective, the Chinese Revolution also saved millions. Life expectancy doubled, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. We also know that the Black Book of Communism has long been debunked, it included made up numbers, Nazis killed during World War II as victims of Communism, and non-births as deaths.
Meanwhile in the real world
Between 1950 and 1980, China experienced the most rapid sustained increase in life expectancy of any population in documented global history. We know of no study that has quantitatively assessed the relative importance of the various explanations proposed for this gain in survival. We have created and analysed a new, province-level panel data set spanning the decades between 1950 and 1980 by combining historical information from China's public health archives, official provincial yearbooks, and infant and child mortality records contained in the 1988 National Survey of Fertility and Contraception. Although exploratory, our results suggest that gains in school enrolment and public health campaigns together are associated with 55-70 per cent of China's dramatic reductions in infant and under-5 mortality during our study period. These results underscore the importance of non-medical determinants of population health, and suggest that, in some circumstances, general education of the population may amplify the effectiveness of public health interventions.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25495509/
Should do an AMA on what it's like to put those clown shoes on every morning.
Wow calm down you know you can talk normally to people , you dont need to insult them. Also I dont know if I m a clown but at least I know that when you tell to every peoples who make food : go make iron , it dont go very well at least on the moment. Also this does not contradict the fact that this graphic is based on data that is not worth comparing because the number of country /time spend under Communism and capitalism are completely different .
Edit: Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine so yeah 30MILLION DEATH ,more than WW2 , so I wasnt even wrong
aren't those "killed by communists" lists tend to include the Nazis killed in ww2? kind of dishonest.
The author of the black book of communism tended to write include even people who stubbed their toe as “victims of communism” yea.
kicks nightstand "curse you Marx"
That author was so dubious that even two other co-authors of the book later denounced it.
That is one of the more honest examples of what they do.
You want dishonest?
They count the difference between expected birthrate and actual birthrate.
War causes people to have less babies? Each baby not born = 1 death caused by communism.
Worse then dead, they never were.
it's interesting how anyone who dies in a communist country (even not being born there counts) is considered "death by communism", but then ignore the same from non communist counties.
kind of dishonest on their part...
Better sex education, access to contraception/abortion, and generally women having more control over when they have children/how many children they want to have under socialism was claimed to have taken "victims" too. Because if you're not accidentally getting pregnant at 19 with no recourse other than giving birth to children you didn't want, that's oppression by a totalitarian dictator.
Also the people killed by the Nazis
Honest question: where does the 1,6 billion figure come from?
Every death by Dutch capitalism (death from the slave trade, Colonialism/Colonial wars (Oceania, Africa, ...), ...)
plus
Every death by British empire's capitalism (Irish genocide, Bengal famine, Slave trade, Colonialism/Colonial wars (India, Africa, North America, South east Asia, Oceania, Middle east, ...) , Opium wars, Massacres against independence movements (India, ...), ...)
plus
Every death by French capitalism (Colonialism/colonial wars (North America, Caribbeans, Africa, South east Asia, ...), Slave trade, Massacres against independence movements (Algeria, Haiti, ...), ...)
plus
Every death by Belgian capitalism (Colonialism/Colonial wars (Congo, ...), Slave trade, Massacres against independence movements, ...)
plus
Every death by United States' capitalism (Colonialism/Colonial wars (Cuba, Hawaii, Philipines, North America, ...), Massacres against independence movements (South east Asia, Oceania, Cuba, ...), Slave trade, ...)
plus
Every death by German capitalism (Nama and Herero genocide, Holocaust, Slave trade, ...)
plus
Every death caused by preventable starvation, lack of access to water, healthcare.
List very much non-exhaustive.
If you add it all up you easily get over 1 Billion.
As expected this made libs here seething. Spectre haunts again lmao.
I’m getting a bit tired of seeing the communism/capitalism dichotomy. Guys let’s be pluralistic or at least see these two as a scale. There are a lot of solutions in between. Government failures exist just as much as market failures. Let’s focus on the actual root causes of our problems: externalities, rent seeking, private land ownership, too long patents, public good provision, overly complex legal system, information asymmetries in labor markets. We need unions, free health care, cheaper education, carbon taxes, land value taxes, simplified legal system that can’t be taken advantage of. Stop this capitalism vs communism bullshit. That’s not the cause of all this. Your real enemy is “rentier capitalism”.
I think you're quite dramatically misinterpreting what the solutions put forward by Communists are, or at least Marxists. Marxists are not believers that there is some perfect form of society we can implement today that will also be perfect 100 years from now. Rather, the Marxist assertion is that different forms are best suited in different conditions and different levels of development.
China is a good example. The PRC is headed by a Communist party over a Socialist economy, one that has public ownership as the principle aspect, but nonetheless heavily relies on markets. This is because the CPC believes this to be the best form of society right now, and that as markets coalesce into fewer firms, they can be more efficiently publicly owned and planned. The long term belief is that eventually abolishing the value form will be possible and necessary, but we aren't there yet.
I think that because you haven't engaged with what Communists are actually trying to do, you've ended up inventing a strawman to argue against, even though you'd likely agree with us. Marxism is a scientific approach to economic development. There isn't an "in-between" of Communism vs Capitalism, because we are either taking control over Capital, or it has control over us.
Public vs private ownership of companies is a case by case basis. Many “capitalist” countries have many publicly owned companies. We used to have even more before Thatcher and Reagan. Now we have moved into a more public private partnership idea, which is a compromise.
Monopolies are able to extract monopoly rents through market power. This is one of the problems of rentier capitalism. That is why we have antitrust laws. We also need a system that prevents political rents from lobbyism for example by making it illegal for politicians to have stocks or to take campaign money from donors. We also have land rents from private land ownership. Singapore has a public land lease model, but a land value tax would achieve the exact same outcome.
In economics you talk about natural monopolies which is when initial investment costs are too high for competitors to exist or when physics or other constraints prevent competition (think of a railway line between two cities). There are many ways to argue that these types of companies should be publicly owned within a capitalist framework.
So yes, there is an in-between. And it depends exactly how much business is left to the government and how much is left to companies. This balance is defined by politics.
Yeah. Historic communism has the same problem as capitalism. People in unchecked power at the top. Doesn't matter what ideology we follow if we refuse to fix root problems.
It's also a problem that people love to gather around either worshipping or hating a certain individual, party or political direction. I wish people would focus more on the politics beneath, facts, statistics and causality
I don't think that's an accurate assessment of Socialism as it exists in the real world, or Capitalism as it exists in the real world. Further, I think the idea that Communists don't focus on the politics beneath, alongside facts, statistics, and causality to be extremely far outside the norm. If anything, ask any Communist for a source, and they likely keep a laundry list of books and links for you to check out, a flood of information. That has been more true in my experience, and is part of what led me to Communism.
In countries led by capitalism, you have a higher probability of documentation. With the communist nothing may be written down..... even the dead Wagner soldiers in front of you in the grave may not be documented and never pay as killed. Fuck off with your filthy propaganda.... Visit the mass graves in Africa etc caused by Russia!
Russia is not communist, though?
Not officially. How many of Lenin's statutes, for example, are still standing? Where is there an effort to distance oneself from the past? Oh wait... Putin wants the former status of the USSR with Russia... what else was there, oh yes, communism.
Really funny but when Russia then accuses other countries of "Nazis Nazis Nazis" this double standard of the Russians
The most disgusting thing is the attempt to distract. Away from the facts that communism is also responsible for millions of deaths, it is just not documented there but hushed up.
You seem very confused in your beliefs, have you tried asking questions?
Provided you say that russia / china are in fact not communist, what would be a real existing (or past) communist country in which a large amount of people have lived?
Russia is no longer guided by Communist leadership, but both the PRC and former USSR are examples of countries led by Communists, with Socialist systems. Same with Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and more.
Cuba seems to be a great country, people there most definitely have great lives. Freedom_of_the_press_in_Cuba Elections in cuba
Laos has been governed by the Lao People's Revolutionary Party, under which non-governmental organisations have routinely characterised the country's human rights record as poor, citing repeated abuses such as torture, restrictions on civil liberties and persecution of minorities.
DPRK = north korea
Sure are great countries you listed there...
For the record i dont want to doubt that marxism would be a nice experience but the lack of non ass, real countries makes me do so
If its so much better there how come you dont live there?
Provided you say that russia / china are in fact not communist
The capitalist Russian Federation was formed in the 90s (leading to the economic disaster and the desperation that allowed Putin to rise to power). Russia is literally not, in any way, a socialist state for 35 years now.
The former Soviet Union, similarly to China today, was ruled by a communist party. This means the government is trying to move towards socialism, but it does not imply they've established a socialist mode of production - the goal of the socialist movement. This is a big source of ambiguity and confusion when people try to argue if countries "are/aren't socialist", that's too vague, and even then you can't just tell by the current situation - a government or society can follow a school or thought or ideology (socialist theory) before it achieves its goals (a socialist mode of production). "Communist" can refer to either the social movement (SU and PRC were obviously that) or the politico-economic reality (obviously neither has achieved that, let alone a socialist MoP),
Economies like China's are a big source of debates among socialist theorists about whether it's state capitalist, communist, or some mixed hybrid economy. Their economy has departed from capitalism-as-we-know-it, but still have the core features (capital, private property). But, regardless of their economy, they're clearly a party trying to achieve communism, and therefore the PRC is a communist state that hasn't achieved a communist mode of production.
TL;DR: Until we ask more specific questions, someone can say these countries are communist, someone else can say they're not, and both are correct answers.
There are pre-industrial societies (including some like Zapatista territory in Chiapas, Mexico with 300,000 people) which some would call socialist or even communist, but I don't think they're worth bringing up when discussing whole modern countries - their situations aren't as applicable to our conditions.
whatever your ideology is, i don't like it
