Communist nations may have killed millions. But capitalist nations have killed more by orders of magnitude.
It’s almost like humans resort to violence when they think they can get away with it
How do you even quantify that?
“You died by capitalism” – How?
It’s impossible to quantify how many people were killed by an economic system because it’s never direct. You would have to arbitrarily decide how many layers of abstraction are too many for the death to be attributable to the economic system under which it occurred, and the more layers there are the more unclear it is. That’s why the “victims of communism” numbers and lists that get thrown around are all bullshit, it’s entirely subjective. If you want to be objective you have to be specific about the cause of death and whose actions directly resulted in it.
For example, imagine an alcoholic homeless man dies of exposure after being evicted from a building he was squatting in. Who’s responsible? There are lots of answers you could give; the cops who were sent to evict him, the owner of the building who sent the cops, the community who didn’t help him, the person or company that sold him the alcohol, the alcohol itself, or even just himself. I can’t objectively say that this man “died by capitalism,” but I can say that it might have been prevented under a different economic system, that this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution.
That’s why the “victims of communism” numbers and lists that get thrown around are all bullshit, it’s entirely subjective. If you want to be objective you have to be specific about the cause of death and whose actions directly resulted in it.
But killing and revolution is an intrinsic part of a communist state, no? The whole uproot the rich and kill them? Historically, this seems to be the case at least, particularly China and the Soviet Union.
Killing and revolution is an intrinsic part of transforming society, whether that’s from feudalism to capitalism or capitalism to communism. Listen, as an anarchist I’m not personally a fan of China and the Soviet Union either, but the demonization of communism as if it’s this brutal and violent ideology is just silly. Violence and brutality are the tools of the state, no matter its’ economic system. The actions of China or the Soviet Union are attributable only to China or the Soviet Union, not communism.
If you want to attribute a death to the economic system of communism you have to explain how the economic system resulted in that death. I attribute the deaths of homeless people to capitalism because there is a clear line of causality to follow, but like I said before there are many layers of abstraction and the determination is a subjective and philosophical one. When a cop kills someone capitalism is often a factor, but I don’t blame capitalism, I blame the state.
Violence and brutality are the tools of the state, no matter its’ economic system. The actions of China or the Soviet Union are attributable only to China or the Soviet Union, not communism.
Yes, but it is communism that gave rise to these states, and they do these actions in the name of being a communist state as well. Like purges were common.
Homelessness in the soviet union is very interesting, though. It wasn’t reported often due to cultural reasons, falling under ‘social waste’ and work ethic, so we don’t have much to work with other than some personal experiences and modern exploration. It existed, but the government didn’t report it for fear of looking weak.
regardless, these states did engage in genocide against dissidents and minorities, which you cannot deny. That’s the main focus of this post.
regardless, these states[emphasis mine] did engage in genocide against dissidents and minorities, which you cannot deny.
I don’t deny it, I just disagree that those actions are attributable to the economic system. The economic system of communism is fine, it’s the marxist conception of the intelligentsia seizing the state and establishing a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that leads to problems. The responsible party for genocide is the state that carried it out, not communism. If not in the name of communism, they would have done so in the name of some other belief system.
Except they did do it for the sake of communism; it’s in their own wording.
They have a point, though. Compare life expectancy in China --even during the Great Leap Forward and the Four Pests Campaign to life in (for example) colonized India. Communism wasn’t great, but compare it to the alternative. I’m not a fan of China, i’m an anarchist, but some of the criticism is just red scare bullshit and not backed by facts.
Compare life expectancy in China --even during the Great Leap Forward and the Four Pests Campaign to life in (for example) colonized India.
Okay. 1965 - Chinese life expectancy was 44.
1965 - Indian life expectancy was 44.
Alright then, fine. Pulling out some actual stats:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041350/life-expectancy-china-all-time/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041383/life-expectancy-india-all-time/
At the worst part of the Great Leap Forward, China was still slightly ahead of India: 44.6 to 43. Everywhere else (and to this day), they’re meaningfully ahead. (How Communist they are in the modern era may be up for debate, though.) The Chinese Communist Revolution took place over a long period of time but was pretty well concluded by 1949. India got its independence in 1947, at a very similar time. Ten years later is roughly the period we’re talking about, but ten years after that China has pulled well ahead of India. In 1970, China’s life expectancy was 55 while India’s was 46.
In addition to that, let’s take a look at conditions before the respective revolutions. In China, life was pretty horrible. Life expectancy was flat and only started going up toward the end of the Communist Revolution. In India, under British rule, it was even worse. This isn’t a small detail, it is a major, catastrophic failure of The West and colonialist capitalism in general. If we’re saying Communist China was bad because of the Four Pests campaign then what kind of failure does that make Britain, which failed to address the horrendous living conditions in India for decades?
The Chinese Communist Revolution took place over a long period of time but was pretty well concluded by 1949. India got its independence in 1947, at a very similar time. Ten years later is roughly the period we’re talking about, but ten years after that China has pulled well ahead of India.
“Pulled ahead” might make more sense if they were at the same position in 1950, around when they got their independence. They were not. There’s a 7 year gap between them in 1950, and by 1965 there’s a two year gap. Great success, China! Really pulled ahead by (checks notes) letting India catch up.
Life expectancy was flat and only started going up toward the end of the Communist Revolution.
As did life expectancy everywhere else in the world at the same time. Must be that worldwide revolution I keep hearing so much about.
In India, under British rule, it was even worse.
1945 life expectancy in India: 32, according to the source you provided.
1945 life expectancy in China: 33, according to the source you provided.
Fuck’s sake.
You know there are easier ways to critique colonialism and capitalism than trying to bootlick Mao and the CCP, right?
There’s a 7 year gap between them in 1950, and by 1965 there’s a two year gap.
1965 is again the one point at which they actually overlap in any meaningful way. Let’s look at that 20 year time period: in 1950, India was at 34, in 1970 it was at 46. In other words, from approximately 20 years after India gained independence its life expectancy increased by 12. In 1950, China was at 40, in 1970 it was at 55. In approximately 20 years since the Communist revolution, life expectancy increased by 15. I think it’s relevant that India was starting from further back but i don’t think that’s the only thing that mattered
As did life expectancy everywhere else in the world at the same time. Must be that worldwide revolution I keep hearing so much about.
Both India and China came a long way from the start of the 20th century and it’s a little insulting to suggest they have not. Looking at the statista numbers again, the global average was an appalling 31 in 1900. India was an even more appalling 22, by comparison China was actually doing well at 32. By 2020, the global average has risen to 73 while China is now beating that even more at 76.6 and India is not quite there at 69. (An increase of 44.6 for China, a comparatively better 47 for India, and 42 for the world.) For comparison to that, the United States was at 46 in 1900 and rose to 79 in 2020, a lesser but still not bad 33 years improvement. Western Europe is similar.
Life expectancy has improved globally, but both India and China have beaten the average.
1945 life expectancy in India…
Try looking at, say, 1900 or any of the period prior to that. It was below the global average, it was bad and it was bad for a hundred years. In fact, comparing a hundred years back to 1900 it was actually decreasing in India over those hundred years. China wasn’t doing great, but it was doing better prior to the Communist Revolution than India was under Colonial rule.
I’m licking any fucking boots, here, and i’m not about to overlook the evils of colonialism. I am dealing with the numbers.
In other words, from approximately 20 years after India gained independence its life expectancy increased by 12. In 1950, China was at 40, in 1970 it was at 55. In approximately 20 years since the Communist revolution, life expectancy increased by 15.
“In 20 years, the historically developed ethnostate increased its life expectancy three (3) more years than a country which, to this day, lacks a common ethnicity or language and whose development has been uneven at best”
Wow, great work CCP, I bow before the Great Leaps Forward of Mao.
I think it’s relevant that India was starting from further back but i don’t think that’s the only thing that mattered
You thought it relevant enough to completely ignore it until it was pointed out, how sweet.
I’m licking any fucking boots, here, and i’m not about to overlook the evils of colonialism. I am dealing with the numbers.
You quite clearly are licking boots in trying to justify the horrific crimes of Mao and the CCP by playing some “Life expectancy went UP” game while ignoring contemporary trends and trying to play ‘whataboutism’ games with India using some dubious reading of life expectancy statistics to try to prove that Stalinist-style totalitarianism of the kind that even the Soviet Union had abandoned by that time was actually A Net Good™.
Both India and China came a long way from the start of the 20th century and it’s a little insulting to suggest they have not. Looking at the statista numbers again, the global average was an appalling 31 in 1900. India was an even more appalling 22, by comparison China was actually doing well at 32.
Would you kindly read aloud for the class what your own source says is the life expectancy of the two countries at 1900?
I also love how the argument goes from “Life expectancy went UP when the Communist Party came into power! Correlation is causation!” to “Well, they beat the average world life expectancy 40 years later!”
We’re fucking done here, bootlicker.
Ironic for a group that currently obsesses over anti-genocide to be pro-genocide;
"Even if every absurd fabrication that the anti-communist propagandists like to parrot about the millions supposedly killed by Stalin, Mao, etc. was true, those numbers would pale in comparison to the number of lives they saved, "
also
Creating gender equality
Until Stalin reversed it all lol (there are also no high-ranking women in the Chinese government – ever)
What we really need is a female let totalitarian dictatorship.
Source: The Onion
See, out of a somewhat displaced curiosity, I’d actually like to see that. Would it turn out the “same” as previous mainly patriarchic autocracies? Would it collapse? Any interesting policies?
Ask Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina was widely considered to be an autocrat.
