Yang Jisheng: The man who discovered 36 million dead(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Yang Jisheng: The man who discovered 36 million dead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20410424
7 comments
The BBC...when is the BBC going to "discover" the famine they caused in Ireland in the 1840s? I guess they're too busy digging up the Chinese..."commemorate Empire Day, when we try to remember the names of all those from the Sudbury area who so gallantly gave their lives to keep China British"...China had famines for thousands of years, including in the 20th century before the communists took over. The one they mention is their last one. The unusual thing is not the 1961 famine but that there have been no famines in China for a half century. Because the communists smashing the Four Olds and industrializing the country and kicking out the foreign imperialists got the country on track. Of course the British ignore the famines they cause, and dig up so-called famines by their former imperial conquests. China would not have had to industrialize so quickly if England was not threatening China from Hong Kong and so forth. That does not count of course. Thankfully, anti-imperialists are crashing into the US/UK all the time now, showing those hubris-filled imperialists who live by the sword shall feel the sword coming from the other end as well.
"The BBC...when is the BBC going to "discover" the famine they caused in Ireland in the 1840s?"
Oh look, the BBC already did and you didn't even bother to check (although how the BBC caused it is a mystery to me, given that the BBC is a Broadcasting company formed in 1922 and the potato famine happened during the previous century).
Such self-righteousness that assumes wrong-doing without even checking. It's the worst kind of ideology; to not even care enough about the truth to check. If reality conflicts with political opinion, it's not opinion that's wrong; it's reality that's at fault.
This is just the first google hit, but the list of BBC pages covering it goes on and on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...
Oh look, the BBC already did and you didn't even bother to check (although how the BBC caused it is a mystery to me, given that the BBC is a Broadcasting company formed in 1922 and the potato famine happened during the previous century).
Such self-righteousness that assumes wrong-doing without even checking. It's the worst kind of ideology; to not even care enough about the truth to check. If reality conflicts with political opinion, it's not opinion that's wrong; it's reality that's at fault.
This is just the first google hit, but the list of BBC pages covering it goes on and on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...
The BBC...when is the BBC going to "discover" the famine they caused in Ireland in the 1840s?
Don't worry, they've discovered it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...
Don't worry, they've discovered it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...
> Don't worry, they've discovered it.
Oh. No. Don't you get it: The Western World is exactly the same as the Far East, exactly the same as Africa, and so on. For every Great Leap Forwards there's a Holocaust, for every Congolese war there's an English Civil War, and so on, and so forth, tit for tat, with absolutely no difference at all between Winston Churchill and Mao Zedong. Exactly the same. Otherwise, it's just racist.
Oh. No. Don't you get it: The Western World is exactly the same as the Far East, exactly the same as Africa, and so on. For every Great Leap Forwards there's a Holocaust, for every Congolese war there's an English Civil War, and so on, and so forth, tit for tat, with absolutely no difference at all between Winston Churchill and Mao Zedong. Exactly the same. Otherwise, it's just racist.
I'm quite happy to play this game with you if you set the rules. If we include the 19th and 20th Century and I'm allowed to include Russia as 'The West' then game on...
But I think you're getting irate about a sub-text rather than the game at hand so let's discuss what's really bothering you.
But I think you're getting irate about a sub-text rather than the game at hand so let's discuss what's really bothering you.
> But I think you're getting irate about a sub-text rather than the game at hand so let's discuss what's really bothering you.
In simple language: The inability of some people, all of whom I strongly suspect are from stable First World democracies of the type Freedom House ranks highly, being unable to see any difference between, as I said, Churchill and Mao, or George W. Bush and Robert Mugabe.
Every single thing they disagree with is exactly equivalent, making their arguments a massive exercise in the False Dilemma: You agree with them or you're morally supporting the Great Leap Forwards, Rwandan Genocide, and female genital mutilation, even if the actual topic is tax policy.
In short, they're just annoying idiots who have no real perspective trying to sound like they know something. Their use of 'racism' claims as a convenient dodge is just the icing on the cake.
In simple language: The inability of some people, all of whom I strongly suspect are from stable First World democracies of the type Freedom House ranks highly, being unable to see any difference between, as I said, Churchill and Mao, or George W. Bush and Robert Mugabe.
Every single thing they disagree with is exactly equivalent, making their arguments a massive exercise in the False Dilemma: You agree with them or you're morally supporting the Great Leap Forwards, Rwandan Genocide, and female genital mutilation, even if the actual topic is tax policy.
In short, they're just annoying idiots who have no real perspective trying to sound like they know something. Their use of 'racism' claims as a convenient dodge is just the icing on the cake.
I'll just leave this here:
http://io9.com/5927112/chinas-worst-self+inflicted-disaster-...
http://io9.com/5927112/chinas-worst-self+inflicted-disaster-...
1. The author profiled by the BBC is not an agent of the BBC.
2. The author asserts that the Chinese famine is unique in that it occurred despite the lack of pressure from natural disasters. The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the blight.
3. The estimate for the Chinese famine is 36 million dead and dwarfs the death toll of the previous Chinese famines. The potato famine death toll was about 1 million.
2. The author asserts that the Chinese famine is unique in that it occurred despite the lack of pressure from natural disasters. The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the blight.
3. The estimate for the Chinese famine is 36 million dead and dwarfs the death toll of the previous Chinese famines. The potato famine death toll was about 1 million.
Note that the Irish famine was so severe only because the English accepted Malthus' theory that human populations would expand to the carrying capacity of the land and then die back in famines. Therefore intervening would just lay the groundwork for a larger, later, famine.
Nobody at the time had come to terms with the fact that improvements in agriculture had massively increased the carrying capacity of the land. Whether we eventually are forced into famine or manage to curb populations before that point is still uncertain. But there is no question that the English could have intervened, stopped most of the casualties, and there would not have been a quick recurrence of the famine.
Nobody at the time had come to terms with the fact that improvements in agriculture had massively increased the carrying capacity of the land. Whether we eventually are forced into famine or manage to curb populations before that point is still uncertain. But there is no question that the English could have intervened, stopped most of the casualties, and there would not have been a quick recurrence of the famine.
FWIW and from what I can tell, that is 1 million out of a total Irish population of 6 million at the time (1845, Wolfram Alpha), versus 36 million out of a total population of 682 million (1960, W.A.). So in 1 in 6 vs 1 in 20.
So one could argue that the Great Famine was a much more widespread (factor 100 population), but less severe (factor 1/3 mortality) catastrophe. Disregarding all other factors such as causation. The "baseline" mortality due to starvation may also have been different in both instances.
Of course such number games are both cynical and insufficient to deal with the subject (e.g. your point 2).
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Dikötter's 2010 work Mao's Great Famine, seems like a very similar book with very similar conclusions.
So one could argue that the Great Famine was a much more widespread (factor 100 population), but less severe (factor 1/3 mortality) catastrophe. Disregarding all other factors such as causation. The "baseline" mortality due to starvation may also have been different in both instances.
Of course such number games are both cynical and insufficient to deal with the subject (e.g. your point 2).
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Dikötter's 2010 work Mao's Great Famine, seems like a very similar book with very similar conclusions.
As long as we're playing number games, the combined population of Ireland and the UK was 28 million in 1845 according to WA. If we're going to blame the UK, we should probably include citizens of the UK in the tally. Really, it's hard to make a direct comparison since it appears to me that we're trying to compare a problem in a single province controlled by the UK and a general problem across all of China. If Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, and India had all had huge famines in 1845 that might be a little more comparable to the Chinese famine.
But as you say it's not incredibly instructive to look at it by the numbers.
But as you say it's not incredibly instructive to look at it by the numbers.
You might want to read up on UK/Irish history before you call Ireland a province of the UK.
Not sure why the downvotes, but it's true. Ireland was an occupied state, and most of its food production went overseas to the UK. Including England in the total population makes no sense.
I was using province in the classical Roman sense. Ireland did not have self-determination.
Removing England from the tallies would be like removing members of the Chinese communist party from the population of China. You're basically making the tacit assumption that the oppressors had no right to the food and therefore the fact that they did not have a famine is irrelevant. There's an interesting argument there, but you're not actually making it, you're just manipulating the numbers to tell a specific story.
Removing England from the tallies would be like removing members of the Chinese communist party from the population of China. You're basically making the tacit assumption that the oppressors had no right to the food and therefore the fact that they did not have a famine is irrelevant. There's an interesting argument there, but you're not actually making it, you're just manipulating the numbers to tell a specific story.
The whole of Europe had potato crop failures at the same time, but only Ireland had famine. Imagine, in China's case that xighur had a famine while the rest didn't. Now does it make sense to include the whole country in the statistics?
You might as well include France in the stats too...
You might as well include France in the stats too...
Wait, the BBC caused the famine in Ireland in 1840s, nearly 100 years before they were officially founded?
What the hell are you talking about
"Even now, 50 years on, Chinese official history insists the famine of 1958-61 was a natural disaster."
Ask your government what happend during the dustbowl years and what lifted the people out of starvation...
Ask them whether people starved to death because of crop failures or the agricultural policy of the new deal... then try to figure out why crops would be burned while people starved.
Ask them whether people starved to death because of crop failures or the agricultural policy of the new deal... then try to figure out why crops would be burned while people starved.
Government offices are closed today because of Thanksgiving, so what's the answer?
In the book "Tombstone" (the book by the author in the OP), the author reiterates the claim that no democracy has ever suffered from a major famine, but are you asserting an equivalency?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/opinion/chinas-great-shame...
> The reason is political: a full exposure of the Great Famine could undermine the legitimacy of a ruling party that clings to the political legacy of Mao, even though that legacy, a totalitarian Communist system, was the root cause of the famine. As the economist Amartya Sen has observed, no major famine has ever occurred in a democracy.
In the book "Tombstone" (the book by the author in the OP), the author reiterates the claim that no democracy has ever suffered from a major famine, but are you asserting an equivalency?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/opinion/chinas-great-shame...
> The reason is political: a full exposure of the Great Famine could undermine the legitimacy of a ruling party that clings to the political legacy of Mao, even though that legacy, a totalitarian Communist system, was the root cause of the famine. As the economist Amartya Sen has observed, no major famine has ever occurred in a democracy.
If you read Amartya Sen's work on the Bengali famine, it is clear that imperialist democratic countries can cause famines in their colonies.
According to Wikipedia, it seems to be a perfect storm of incompetence, weather and (understandable) preoccupation with WW II.
Also, your reference doesn't fare to good there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Also, your reference doesn't fare to good there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Pretty much all famine are caused by government policies.
Kind of a wake-up call for me. In the west we'll have some incident where a few people were killed, say the Saint Valentine's Day massacre of 1929, and there'll be books, movies, TV specials, and so forth.
In other countries you lose 36 million people -- six times the size of the holocaust in WWII -- and you're not supposed to even ask any questions about it.
We truly do have a lot to be thankful for.
In other countries you lose 36 million people -- six times the size of the holocaust in WWII -- and you're not supposed to even ask any questions about it.
We truly do have a lot to be thankful for.
There's still a lot of sugar-coating in the US. Obviously we are nowhere near as a bad as China in this regard, but the US isn't utopia of truth. In school we are not taught that Christopher Columbus was a moron, tyrant, and slave trader nor did we cover the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. History texts in US schools tend to focus on things that portray the US in a favorable light.
Yes you do. When I first studied US history in the UK, I was surprised to learn that a massacre can involve as few as five people. (Boston Massacre) In Chinese, massacre is translated as "tusha", and is most frequently used with Nanking, where 200k+ people were killed. Still the Japanese standard was too low for us. Then I learned the word 'genocide' which I thought at first is on the Chinese level of massacre. However upon some more reflection it becomes obvious that Chinese killing Chinese in the name of making the starved live better doesn't fit into 'genocide' as well. Perhaps our deeds need a brand new name. After all, no one had seen this since the dawn of men.
We truly do have a lot to be thankful for.
And a lot to stay mindful of ... lest we repeat the mistakes of the past.
And a lot to stay mindful of ... lest we repeat the mistakes of the past.
They have great leaps forward, we have wars on drugs. They aren't allowed to know when their troops fire on civilians in Tienamen square, we aren't allow to know when our troops fire on civilians in another country.
They have celebrated massacres too...
We might write books about St Valentines but many fewer are written about the trail of tears, mainly because St Valentines serves a political purpose where as the trail of tears does not.
It's all "five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains"
They have celebrated massacres too...
We might write books about St Valentines but many fewer are written about the trail of tears, mainly because St Valentines serves a political purpose where as the trail of tears does not.
It's all "five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains"
>> we aren't allow to know when our troops fire on civilians in another country.
Except that most of the Entitled Class, from academia to journalists to Hollywood, has made an minor industry out of supporting totalitarian apologists such as yourself. A prominent example: the New York Times has refused to return the Pulitzer awarded to its pro-Stalinist reporter Walter Duranty, who lied so thoroughly about the Ukranian famine of the 1930's.
Sometimes this apologizing is done directly (as above and as with the fawning support for the late Stalinist historian Eric Hobsbawm), but more often through moral equivalence arguments such as yours.
My wife barely survived the Great Leap Forward. She spent years of her childhood hungry, only to come to this country and read people like you. Unlike you, she's very clear on the difference between Chinese Socialism and America's (semi-)free system.
Except that most of the Entitled Class, from academia to journalists to Hollywood, has made an minor industry out of supporting totalitarian apologists such as yourself. A prominent example: the New York Times has refused to return the Pulitzer awarded to its pro-Stalinist reporter Walter Duranty, who lied so thoroughly about the Ukranian famine of the 1930's.
Sometimes this apologizing is done directly (as above and as with the fawning support for the late Stalinist historian Eric Hobsbawm), but more often through moral equivalence arguments such as yours.
My wife barely survived the Great Leap Forward. She spent years of her childhood hungry, only to come to this country and read people like you. Unlike you, she's very clear on the difference between Chinese Socialism and America's (semi-)free system.
The difference is that the USA has managed to take the killing out of their borders, but aren't any better. This lets them portrait themselves as innocent.
Your quality of life is product of a market sustained by wars and extortion of other countries. The quality of life of the chinese that live in cities are sustained by the rice pickers of the countryside. THAT is the real difference.
Your quality of life is product of a market sustained by wars and extortion of other countries. The quality of life of the chinese that live in cities are sustained by the rice pickers of the countryside. THAT is the real difference.
I'm from ex-USSR and have never been to the US, so my view is kind of balanced. I think the US was able to come up with the most universal product of all times: the american dream. Everything else is just execution.
There were wars throughout the history, but previously there were no ways to make another country people wish to change their believes and become the consumers of another country way of living on a mass scale.
There were wars throughout the history, but previously there were no ways to make another country people wish to change their believes and become the consumers of another country way of living on a mass scale.
> Your quality of life is product of a market sustained by wars and extortion of other countries.
Their cost of war probably outweighs by far any direct/indirect profit they can expect to get out of them. In addition, there are plenty of prosperous countries that are not involved in any wars.
> The quality of life of the chinese that live in cities are sustained by the rice pickers of the countryside. THAT is the real difference.
Fixed pie fallacy. Rich people are not rich because they exploit poor people.
Their cost of war probably outweighs by far any direct/indirect profit they can expect to get out of them. In addition, there are plenty of prosperous countries that are not involved in any wars.
> The quality of life of the chinese that live in cities are sustained by the rice pickers of the countryside. THAT is the real difference.
Fixed pie fallacy. Rich people are not rich because they exploit poor people.
> Their cost of war probably outweighs by far any direct/indirect profit they can expect to get out of them. In addition, there are plenty of prosperous countries that are not involved in any wars.
You are telling me that, for example, Iraq was invaded, for what exact reason, if not for their massive petroleum resources? Menace of WMD? C'mon. The "plenty of countries" you mention is a small fraction of the world, and are extorting and exploiting the third world.
> Fixed pie fallacy. Rich people are not rich because they exploit poor people.
Yeah, great call. Except I never said people in the city are rich because of the contryside. I said they are sustained, they need food and other goods produced by agriculture and such, which is only produced in the countryside. If your born on the countryside, they don't even let you move to the city.
You are telling me that, for example, Iraq was invaded, for what exact reason, if not for their massive petroleum resources? Menace of WMD? C'mon. The "plenty of countries" you mention is a small fraction of the world, and are extorting and exploiting the third world.
> Fixed pie fallacy. Rich people are not rich because they exploit poor people.
Yeah, great call. Except I never said people in the city are rich because of the contryside. I said they are sustained, they need food and other goods produced by agriculture and such, which is only produced in the countryside. If your born on the countryside, they don't even let you move to the city.
> You are telling me that, for example, Iraq was invaded, for what exact reason, if not for their massive petroleum resources? Menace of WMD? C'mon.
There were certainly a few interested parties which have/will indeed greatly profit from the war. I'm not denying that. As a whole though, I'd be surprised if there is a net gain for the US considering the astronomical amount of money the they have spent on the war.
> The "plenty of countries" you mention is a small fraction of the world, and are extorting and exploiting the third world.
Which country is Sweden exploiting? Which country is Switzerland exploiting? The vast majority of third world countries are sovereign and free from foreign exploitation. In fact, many third world countries receive foreign aid from the US.
> I said they are sustained, they need food and other goods produced by agriculture and such, which is only produced in the countryside.
Agreed. What's your point?
> If your born on the countryside, they don't even let you move to the city.
That's not true at all. I'd say about 90% of Shenzhen people were born in the country-side. You very seldom meet someone who was actually born in Shenzhen given that the city is ~30 years old.
There were certainly a few interested parties which have/will indeed greatly profit from the war. I'm not denying that. As a whole though, I'd be surprised if there is a net gain for the US considering the astronomical amount of money the they have spent on the war.
> The "plenty of countries" you mention is a small fraction of the world, and are extorting and exploiting the third world.
Which country is Sweden exploiting? Which country is Switzerland exploiting? The vast majority of third world countries are sovereign and free from foreign exploitation. In fact, many third world countries receive foreign aid from the US.
> I said they are sustained, they need food and other goods produced by agriculture and such, which is only produced in the countryside.
Agreed. What's your point?
> If your born on the countryside, they don't even let you move to the city.
That's not true at all. I'd say about 90% of Shenzhen people were born in the country-side. You very seldom meet someone who was actually born in Shenzhen given that the city is ~30 years old.
> I'd be surprised if there is a net gain for the US
You must be trolling
> Which country is Sweden exploiting? Which country is Switzerland exploiting?
Essentially trading manufactured goods for raw goods
> Agreed. What's your point?
You cryed "fixed pie fallacy", but it doesn't apply. "Such and such fallacy! Over!" cryes are extremely annoying.
> I'd say about 90% of Shenzhen was born in the country-side. You very seldom meet someone who was actually born in Shenzhen given that the city is ~30 years old.
If the government needs people in a new city, it will make sure that people will move to that city. But if a man born on the countryside wants to move to the city, he will not be allowed to do so, at least not near as easily as in any western country.
See. I am not arguing that China has a better way to run a country. I'm just saying that first world countries are no saints either.
You must be trolling
> Which country is Sweden exploiting? Which country is Switzerland exploiting?
Essentially trading manufactured goods for raw goods
> Agreed. What's your point?
You cryed "fixed pie fallacy", but it doesn't apply. "Such and such fallacy! Over!" cryes are extremely annoying.
> I'd say about 90% of Shenzhen was born in the country-side. You very seldom meet someone who was actually born in Shenzhen given that the city is ~30 years old.
If the government needs people in a new city, it will make sure that people will move to that city. But if a man born on the countryside wants to move to the city, he will not be allowed to do so, at least not near as easily as in any western country.
See. I am not arguing that China has a better way to run a country. I'm just saying that first world countries are no saints either.
ShenZhen is the WORST example you could make. It is a Special Economic Zone, created as an experiment to look at the effects of urbanising the country side...
Go next door to Guangzhou, in the evening and walk along the streets and count the "migrants" (what Chinese call people from the country side in the cities) sleeping on the sidewalk because they have no "right" to housing or "legitimate" work.
Go next door to Guangzhou, in the evening and walk along the streets and count the "migrants" (what Chinese call people from the country side in the cities) sleeping on the sidewalk because they have no "right" to housing or "legitimate" work.
No, the quality of life that America still enjoys is the legacy of an extraordinary free market system, one of the first and still most powerful that has ever existed. That market system developed the most advanced and successful capital market in history (that no longer exists), which is why America even still has the dollar global reserve currency, because the 'ol green back was "good as gold" for 150 years. Even today in its deteriorated form, the US monetary system is considered radically safer than all but a few in the world. That market system hinged in part on what was at the time the strongest private property rights in history, and a great judicial system to protect them.
China to this day is struggling just to emulate the kind of innovative success in free market economy that America pioneered centuries ago.
To the extent China is enjoying any success today, it's largely due to free market style reforms of their economy, attempting to abandon the destructive policies of Communism. There's no little irony in the fact that as China has moved more Capitalist, America has shifted far more Socialist (with predictable results).
Which countries did America extort from 1800 to 1965 in order to build its formerly tremendous wealth and resources exactly?
Are you talking oil? America discovered oil, and invented most of its processes. It also discovered oil in the Middle East using said technology, and that oil was then nationalized across the region and countless contracts were violated in the process.
Are you talking industrial technology? America was one of the few countries (eg along with Britain and France) leading the industrial revolution.
Are you talking computer technology? No comment even necessary.
Are you talking biotech? Again, no comment even necessary. Who did America steal its biotech from? Cambodia? Afghanistan? Vietnam? China? Panama?
Pick an industry, pick a technology, you'll find America's entrepreneurial fingerprint all over it.
China to this day is struggling just to emulate the kind of innovative success in free market economy that America pioneered centuries ago.
To the extent China is enjoying any success today, it's largely due to free market style reforms of their economy, attempting to abandon the destructive policies of Communism. There's no little irony in the fact that as China has moved more Capitalist, America has shifted far more Socialist (with predictable results).
Which countries did America extort from 1800 to 1965 in order to build its formerly tremendous wealth and resources exactly?
Are you talking oil? America discovered oil, and invented most of its processes. It also discovered oil in the Middle East using said technology, and that oil was then nationalized across the region and countless contracts were violated in the process.
Are you talking industrial technology? America was one of the few countries (eg along with Britain and France) leading the industrial revolution.
Are you talking computer technology? No comment even necessary.
Are you talking biotech? Again, no comment even necessary. Who did America steal its biotech from? Cambodia? Afghanistan? Vietnam? China? Panama?
Pick an industry, pick a technology, you'll find America's entrepreneurial fingerprint all over it.
Yes, you are right, the USA has used it's superior technology and industry to gain advantage of other countries.
I was merely pointing out that america, too, causes great destruction (outside their borders), and takes advantage of underdeveloped countries, selling their technologically manufactured goods for cheap raw goods.
I am not saying that it is more destructive than China (which is highly subjective), nor that america must stop or any such nonsense, which you seem to believe I'm heading to. I just want you to acknowledge that america is not morally immaculate, quite the contrary.
I was merely pointing out that america, too, causes great destruction (outside their borders), and takes advantage of underdeveloped countries, selling their technologically manufactured goods for cheap raw goods.
I am not saying that it is more destructive than China (which is highly subjective), nor that america must stop or any such nonsense, which you seem to believe I'm heading to. I just want you to acknowledge that america is not morally immaculate, quite the contrary.
What is 'subjective' about 38,702,000 people murdered?
There is something deeply, profoundly morally wrong with you that you have attempted to equivocate that number away for the sake of your ideology.
Polite debate fails here. This is unforgivable. You must become a different person to the one you are now, the one who can put these weasel words on a web forum to try to blur distinctions that must be made.
There is something deeply, profoundly morally wrong with you that you have attempted to equivocate that number away for the sake of your ideology.
Polite debate fails here. This is unforgivable. You must become a different person to the one you are now, the one who can put these weasel words on a web forum to try to blur distinctions that must be made.
English is not my first language, yet I am sure I expressed myself clearly. I said it is subjective to say the USA are more destructive than China, not the other way 'round like you seem to have understood, or wanted to understand.
"Murdered"... No, there was no intent. They starved, because of a number of counter productive measures. Mao would not instigate the great leap forward had he known the consequences in advance.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki was murder
Rape of Nanjing was murder
The holocaust was murder
Great Leap forward was a very big unintentional mistake.
Absolute numbers are deceptive (and depressing) when talking about China, but it is often better to look at percentages.
Your Attack on the GP's morality is uncalled for. I think you need to check your own ideology and emotion at the door, and discuss things rationally.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki was murder
Rape of Nanjing was murder
The holocaust was murder
Great Leap forward was a very big unintentional mistake.
Absolute numbers are deceptive (and depressing) when talking about China, but it is often better to look at percentages.
Your Attack on the GP's morality is uncalled for. I think you need to check your own ideology and emotion at the door, and discuss things rationally.
Just off the top of my head, the cotton industry and banana industry are notable counterexamples to your argument.
And yet the banana industry was financed in great part by american companies which established banana republics throughout the world. To be honest, there's not a whole lot of innovation in the banana industry as far as I've seen it or heard from people who worked in it here in Costa Rica. Also, never mind that most US territory is not well suited for banana plantation.
> attempting to abandon the destructive policies of Communism. There's no little irony in the fact that as China has moved more Capitalist
I think you need to read more Marx. Capitalism is the way you generate the capital to fund Socialism. Marx was aware that even if your own country was Communist, others wouldn't be, so their would be a "Opening up" phase where you move your country through Capitalism, until internal capital is enough to keep your entire population 'comfortable'.
I think you need to read more Marx. Capitalism is the way you generate the capital to fund Socialism. Marx was aware that even if your own country was Communist, others wouldn't be, so their would be a "Opening up" phase where you move your country through Capitalism, until internal capital is enough to keep your entire population 'comfortable'.
>America has shifted far more Socialist (with predictable results).
Good lord, wtf are you talking about? Please keep your glaring demonstrations of ignorance in politics off this site. There are plenty of other sites for that.
Good lord, wtf are you talking about? Please keep your glaring demonstrations of ignorance in politics off this site. There are plenty of other sites for that.
I think it's time to take off your tinfoil hat. There's an order of magnitude difference between how transparent the Chinese and US governments are.
> They have great leaps forward, we have wars on drugs.
In China, you pretty much automatically get the death penalty for trafficking drugs.
> we aren't allow to know when our troops fire on civilians in another country.
Those things are openly reported in the news although I'm sure there are some cover ups by individual soldiers.
> They have great leaps forward, we have wars on drugs.
In China, you pretty much automatically get the death penalty for trafficking drugs.
> we aren't allow to know when our troops fire on civilians in another country.
Those things are openly reported in the news although I'm sure there are some cover ups by individual soldiers.
Like Apache Gunships gunning down innocent families trying to help the wounded (also gunned down by said gunship)?
Yeah that was so 'openly' reported that the person who leaked it will probably spend the rest of his life in prison, and the organisation that reported is treated like a terrorist organisation... Such transparency.
Unfortunately the only people who can truly measure transparency are the ones on the 'inside'... So comparing transparency is nigh impossible.
Yeah that was so 'openly' reported that the person who leaked it will probably spend the rest of his life in prison, and the organisation that reported is treated like a terrorist organisation... Such transparency.
Unfortunately the only people who can truly measure transparency are the ones on the 'inside'... So comparing transparency is nigh impossible.
Hm. If the US and China are morally the same, why are there so few Americans moving to China?
I mean, they shouldn't be able to tell the difference in styles of government, am I right?
I mean, they shouldn't be able to tell the difference in styles of government, am I right?
I'm a Canadian who has moved to China. One of the reasons I decided to move here was that everyday life feels more "free" in China (as long as you don't get involved in politics). However, I would never argue that the Chinese government is more transparent than any Western government and when it comes to political freedom/freedom of press, there is no comparison possible.
On the other hand, I'd say that life in China is in many ways more compatible with libertarian values then Canada/US. If you are socialist/communist leaning, you probably won't like China.
Here's a related comment I posted a few days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4766206
On the other hand, I'd say that life in China is in many ways more compatible with libertarian values then Canada/US. If you are socialist/communist leaning, you probably won't like China.
Here's a related comment I posted a few days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4766206
Moving isn't just a moral decision. You don't see many people moving to Antarctica, either. It's not because they're immoral down there.
If the Chinese can gain supremacy of world affairs while paying people more than Americans pay you will see the same flow from America to China.
Certainly at this point in time by most objective measures America is more free, but it is heading in a direction of less free as China heads in a direction of more free. I believe that both trajectories will accelerate in the coming years for purely economic reasons, as America's fiscal position declines it will head towards more restrictive policies while the fiscal boon to China's populace causes more liberal policies to be explored.
Like most organizations the Communist Party in China is more interested in preserving itself than whether a particular policy may be ideologically pure communism.
Certainly at this point in time by most objective measures America is more free, but it is heading in a direction of less free as China heads in a direction of more free. I believe that both trajectories will accelerate in the coming years for purely economic reasons, as America's fiscal position declines it will head towards more restrictive policies while the fiscal boon to China's populace causes more liberal policies to be explored.
Like most organizations the Communist Party in China is more interested in preserving itself than whether a particular policy may be ideologically pure communism.
Top 10 worst argument I've ever seen. Think about it.
I want to read his book now. Must find that book somehow.
I bought the ebook a few days ago, almost obsessed with detail though I suppose that was the author's intent. It has a very poignant opening, with the author describing e lengths to which his parents cared for him, and how long it took for him to realize how Mao's policies led to his father's death.
In many ways, it reads like a non fictional 1984
In many ways, it reads like a non fictional 1984
Also worth reading is "Hungry Ghosts".
Also worth reading is "Hungry Ghosts".
Yes.
http://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Ghosts-Maos-Secret-Famine/dp/08...
Yes.
http://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Ghosts-Maos-Secret-Famine/dp/08...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp...
"Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years. [...] As the death toll mounts—as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on—the authors systematically show how and why, wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century."