The CPC did not starve to death millions of people. There was famine in China from natural causes, and the CPC did their best to alleviate that as best they could, even if millions ended up starving despite their best efforts. The PRC is still a developing country, and this was ever more true during the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution had its fair share of issues, the modern CPC doesn’t look fondly upon it, but the famine would have happened even without Communists in charge, and in fact it did! Famine was common in China before it industrialized under the CPC.
It is widely regarded as the deadliest famine and one of the greatest man-made disasters in human history
(Emphasis mine.)
Also, regardless of the reason my other points stand: having millions of poor people starve to death will reduce you incarceration rate, and people might choose to live in a country with a higher incarceration rate if it means they don’t starve to death.
The Great Chinese Famine was caused by a combination of radical agricultural policies, social pressure, economic mismanagement, and natural disasters such as droughts and floods in farming regions.
From Wikipedia. Western scholars exaggerate the human factors and minimize the environmental, which were the cause.
It is true that agricultural production decreased in five years between 1949 and 1978 due to “natural calamities and mistakes in the work.” However, during 1949 and 1978, the per hectare yield of land sown with food crops increased by 145.9% and total food production rose 169.6%. During this period China’s population grew by 77.7%. On these figures, China’s per capita food production grew from 204 kilograms to 328 kilograms in the period in question.
China did not have a famine because of communism. China had a natural famine and while some policies strengthened it, others minimized it.
To be perfectly clear, I don’t subscribe to the notion that communism is bad and capitalism is good. I think every socio-economic system has pros and cons and are prone different forms of degredation and usurption.
I think the people leading a country and the people that comprise its society have a larger impact on life than their system of government.
With that said, a government is ultimately responsible for the safety and well-being of its people.
It’s the system that determines how its run, not the people at the top. Your analysis is teetering into Great Man Theory territory, which is derived from Idealism, not Materialism. The mode of production is primary.
Secondly, yes, the government is responsible. Is the government also responsible for drought, though? What should be judged is that, as I stated, food production was dramatically improved, and the government eliminated famine in a country where famine was common prior to Socialism.
For what it’s worth, capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism, but regressive as compared to socialism.
It’s the system that determines how its run, not the people at the top.
That is the catch. It only determines how it is run if the people at the top are following the system. The system is supposed to determine that, but if everyone in positions of power decide to disregard what the system is supposed to be, then suddenly the system that a government used to have or advertises as having, no longer represents the actual state of affairs.
Responsibility means owning an outcome. If I take responsibility for the safety of your children and a meteorite literally falls out of the sky and kills them, I am still responsible. I’m not going to try to make excuses and make sure you know it wasn’t my fault and there wasn’t anything I could have done. I was responsible. Your kids are dead. The buck stops with me. That’s what actual leaders do, they own the outcome.
No, this is wrong. An economic system is a physical thing, it isn’t a group of ideas everyone agrees to follow. People can break laws and whatnot, but fundamentally the system is a physical thing. Your analysis is Idealist, not Materialist.
The CPC does acknowledge problems with the Great Chinese Famine, but you trying to pin it entirely on the CPC is wrong, as well as the idea that the CPC didn’t incarcerate as many people per capita is because of the famine. This is nonsense. Most countries do not imprison nearly as many people as the US does, and the PRC isn’t different in that respect.
The CPC did not starve to death millions of people. There was famine in China from natural causes, and the CPC did their best to alleviate that as best they could, even if millions ended up starving despite their best efforts. The PRC is still a developing country, and this was ever more true during the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution had its fair share of issues, the modern CPC doesn’t look fondly upon it, but the famine would have happened even without Communists in charge, and in fact it did! Famine was common in China before it industrialized under the CPC.
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
(Emphasis mine.)
Also, regardless of the reason my other points stand: having millions of poor people starve to death will reduce you incarceration rate, and people might choose to live in a country with a higher incarceration rate if it means they don’t starve to death.
From Wikipedia. Western scholars exaggerate the human factors and minimize the environmental, which were the cause.
From Prolewiki:
China did not have a famine because of communism. China had a natural famine and while some policies strengthened it, others minimized it.
To be perfectly clear, I don’t subscribe to the notion that communism is bad and capitalism is good. I think every socio-economic system has pros and cons and are prone different forms of degredation and usurption.
I think the people leading a country and the people that comprise its society have a larger impact on life than their system of government.
With that said, a government is ultimately responsible for the safety and well-being of its people.
It’s the system that determines how its run, not the people at the top. Your analysis is teetering into Great Man Theory territory, which is derived from Idealism, not Materialism. The mode of production is primary.
Secondly, yes, the government is responsible. Is the government also responsible for drought, though? What should be judged is that, as I stated, food production was dramatically improved, and the government eliminated famine in a country where famine was common prior to Socialism.
For what it’s worth, capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism, but regressive as compared to socialism.
That is the catch. It only determines how it is run if the people at the top are following the system. The system is supposed to determine that, but if everyone in positions of power decide to disregard what the system is supposed to be, then suddenly the system that a government used to have or advertises as having, no longer represents the actual state of affairs.
Responsibility means owning an outcome. If I take responsibility for the safety of your children and a meteorite literally falls out of the sky and kills them, I am still responsible. I’m not going to try to make excuses and make sure you know it wasn’t my fault and there wasn’t anything I could have done. I was responsible. Your kids are dead. The buck stops with me. That’s what actual leaders do, they own the outcome.
No, this is wrong. An economic system is a physical thing, it isn’t a group of ideas everyone agrees to follow. People can break laws and whatnot, but fundamentally the system is a physical thing. Your analysis is Idealist, not Materialist.
The CPC does acknowledge problems with the Great Chinese Famine, but you trying to pin it entirely on the CPC is wrong, as well as the idea that the CPC didn’t incarcerate as many people per capita is because of the famine. This is nonsense. Most countries do not imprison nearly as many people as the US does, and the PRC isn’t different in that respect.