There is a growing number of people who has started glazing for Mao, saying that he was just misunderstood, that the deaths should not be attributed to him, and was in fact a great leader.
>>18630179I hate Tankies so much it's unreal. I hate them more than I hate Chuds
>>18630185Because chuds are constantly treading water for their opinions.Meanwhile tankies are semi-acceptable despite the fact that they are equally insane.
>>18630179He was a Great Leader, just like Emperor Showa, and fought to save Greater East Asia from Anglo-American imperialism
>>18630196Everyone fought against western imperialism, you dont need Mao for that.Certainly you do not need someone who causes the death of 100 million people and creates a terror state
State dept's working overtime on the hasbara front and got no spare time for stuff that far down Israeli priorities
>>18630179Not a commie, but I've never actually seen hard proof he killed 80 gorillion people. Practically any claim can be made about China and it's unfalsifiable
>>18630228Same shit as every commie country, famine deaths are counted for them but not for capitalist countries.
>>18630228Idk about china however Soviets were slandered hard by politically motivated fraudsters such as Robert Conquest and Paul Johnson
>>18630235No capitalist country has had a famine that resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths
>>18630228>Practically any claim can be made about China and it's unfalsifiablehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
>>18630244Nor has China. The highest estimated death toll doesn't even come close to hundreds of millions.But the British did had a famine of several million in the Raj.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943I take it the British Empire wasn't capitalist? Or does this not count for some reason?
>>18630238I find the claims about Stalin easier to believe because at least they're fairly consistent. Claims about Mao will have a margin of error of like 60 million which makes them difficult to take serious. The truth is no one except the CCP really knows.
>>18630252>Nor has ChinaSo that's a lieSo the Great Chinese Famine did result in an estimated 45 million deathsSo that's not at all up for debate and is generally considered historic factI don't really understand this whole outright denial of reality that's common amongst Tankies but these are easily verifiable so please stop doing that thanks because it's really fucking annoying
>>1863026145 is not "hundreds", and that's the wildest propaganda estimate they could get away with without being laughed out of the room.
>>18630268That's awesome, it's still considered the deadliest famine in human history, and last I checked it's orders of magnitude higher than your example>"Not falsifiable">"Nobody truly knows for sure!"Bite me
>>18630251>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_FamineThis proves my point. Academics have no idea of the specific death toll, hence the absurd margin of error.When your margin of error is potentially larger than the death toll itself, it becomes difficult to take seriously.
>>18630278The lower bound is 15 million people. That's not something you shouldn't take seriously. It was a significant event in the context of the Great Leap Forward
>>18630276The Chinese famine of 1906 had a death toll estimated to be over 20 million, while the Chinese famine of 1959 had a death toll estimated over 15 million. So it isn't even necessarily the largest death toll in 20th century China let alone world history
>>18630285
>>18630290Yet for some reason the 1906 famine only has a margin of error of 5 million (20-25 million) while the 1959 famine has a margin of error of 40 million (15-55 million). Doesn't it even slightly bother you how little Western academics know about the 1959 famine?
>>18630253Isnt the "margin of error makes it difficult to believe" the exact same argument neonazies use about the holocaust?
>>18630312Or generalplan ost for that matter
>>18630312Do you think I'm going to shrink away at being compared to hecking holocaust denier? I don't deny the Holocaust, but I also don't particularly care about it and it isn't the basis of my worldview
>>18630278Because academics dont have access to the records.Its the exact same story with the Armenian genocide.And it was the exact same story with the USSR before the USSR collapsed and academics did get access to the archieves, but before then that too was estimated, and while historians couldnt know how many Stalin killed, the estimated it was in the tens of millions.
>>18630323That's exactly my point. Only the CCP knows the precise death tolls so any claims about Mao are ultimately speculation at this point in time.
>>18630320You're obivously being selective about your arguments tho, and you refuse to even put it into perspective.Hence why communist genocidal denial will always be compared to holocaust denial. You are two sides of the same coin.
>>18630324Yes but you seem to have failed to see my point.My point was that estimates arent conjured out of thin air, and they are typically correct once proof is finally shown
>>18630328Cool. You're free to consider me a nazi-communist if you want. I don't care about your labels>>18630333I agree that at least 15 million died between 1959 and 1961, is that what you want to hear?The 55 million death toll number can't be taken seriously unless there is more evidence. Which, I'm not discounting the possibility of. It's just that such hard evidence doesn't exist at this point in time.
>>18630338>Cool. You're free to consider me a nazi-communist if you want. I don't care about your labelsI never labeled you. I only questioned your logic and put it into perspective.>It's just that such hard evidence doesn't exist at this point in timeNo but the estimates has basis behind them, and unless China stops trying to hide the evidence, then estimates is what we're going by.So no its not 15 million, its 15-60 million, until China tells us.
>>18630341Perhaps there is simply a disconnect here.I believe positive claims require a burden of proof while you believe negative claims require a burden of proof.
>>18630346No the difference between you and me is that I accept both the positive and negative claim, where as you only accept the negative claim.And I believe that historians estimates arent baseless because they've been proven to be accurate once evidence becomes accessible, as was the case with Stalins USSR where achieves were locked for a long time until estimates were proven correct after the 1990s. So until China actually make their records accessible, then the estimates is what stands. The serial killer wont walk from court just because he successfully hid most of the bodies.But if you want to get real pragmatic then a more fair estimate (for your benefit) would be to place the death toll between 1 million to 500 million, since like you said, we dont have solid proof, thanks to the very government that is reponsible.
>>18630366>No the difference between you and me is that I accept both the positive and negative claim, where as you only accept the negative claim.To clarify: You think the estimate should be 15 million. I think the estimate should be 15-60 million.
>>18630366>>18630368My whole point was that a margin of error of that level makes the claim meaningless.Unless you're willing to commit to something more concrete (ie: it was between 30 and 35 million) then I can't take your argument seriously.
>>18630366>The serial killer wont walk from court just because he successfully hid most of the bodies.Uh . . except that actually is how it works? In a court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Without evidence a criminal must be assumed innocent.
>>18630369>My whole point was that a margin of error of that level makes the claim meaningless.It's not a margin of error, its a margin of estimate.And it exists because there there were signs of a sudden spike in depopulation at the time proven by historians but since China refuse to allow access to records, then estimates must be between reasonably-lowest to reasonably-highest. And until China actually provides access to evidence, then estimates is what we have to go by. This is how courts function on a daily basis. You dont get to walk just because the body wasnt found or the semen in the childs vagina wasnt found. The court only needs to provide reasonable supicion to have you convicted, especially when you do everything you can to hide the evidence.
>>18630374> Without evidence a criminal must be assumed innocent.Nope. The court can still sentence you based on reasonable susupicion, especially if you do evertything you can to hinder the investigation. Are you an idiot?
>>18630403To correct myself (because I am European and english is not my first language), the court can convict you if circumstantial evidence is strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.i.e, even if there was no actual camera footages of you doing the crime, or no hard evidence such as fingerprints on the victim you molested or murdered, the amount of evidence and circumstances can eventually add up to a reasonable level of proof.If we know that people went missing while you were around, and you do everything you can to prevent an investigation, those are extremely telling evidence that can lead to a conviction.
>>18630399But you're unwilling both to give a concrete claim and provide evidence for said claim."It's more than 15 million and less than 60 million" is not a concrete claim. It's a vague placeholder that represents your lack of evidence regarding the subject.You obviously believe it's substantially more than 15 million, but you're too lacking in confidence in your ability to prove such, hence why you won't commit to it.
>>18630415So if you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that over 30 million died in 1959 then why won't you make that your claim?Because you don't actually have proof?You're the one choosing to not make a solid claim, because you fundamentally lack evidence.
>>18630425>So if you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that over 30 million died in 1959 then why won't you make that your claim?Because it's harder to proven such an exact number.The estimate is based on reason. The 15 million is the reasonably lowest number and 60 million is the reasonably highest number that the level of available evidence without Chinese cooperation to put an exact number can give, and unless China cooperates, then the reasonbly lowest to reasonably highest is what we have.>>18630422>But you're unwilling both to give a concrete claim and provide evidence for said claim.Historians has found evidence to suggest that as many as 15-60 million died in China at that time, and I trust historians.Dont give me that stormfag logic that I myself must provide original source evidence to prove that a single jew was gassed because historians makes you seethe.>"It's more than 15 million and less than 60 million" is not a concrete claim.It's not a claim it's an estimate.>You obviously believe it's substantially more than 15 millionNo I've been very clear about this that I believe the numbers to be between 15-60 millions. That means I will accept the lowest to the highest of that number if China provides the exact number one day. You're the only insisting on removing the range.
>>18630443If the most you will commit to is that it's 15 million, then your claim is identical to my own. You simply want to imply it's higher while cowardly refusing to commit to it. I have judged you to be unworthy to reason with, and as such, we have nothing more to discuss. Good day.
>>18630312>Brings up the Holocaust for no reasonWhy are kikels like this?
>>18630443>Muh stormfags are defending Mao ZedongHoly fuck you're beyond parody. Are the Jews short circuiting?
>>18630455Jews actually hate China because it's the one country the Jewish golems (America and Russia) can't control
>>18630448Again, you're the one insisting on a definitive number (which is harder to reasonably prove without access to the actual documents themselves) while I am insisting on an estimate since limited evidence can only support an estimate.What you dont undersrand is that the wider range the estimates are, the more believeable it actually becomes. It's the smaller range numbers that are less believeable because if the death toll estimate range is a lot shorter, then it suggests that we have absolute certainty of the number, which we dont.I think you want to disengage from the debate because you know there is logic to what I am saying.
>>18630450Why do you seethe so hard over putting things into perspective? We're talking about genocide so I used one genocide as an example.
>>18630455Didnt say you were one but you began using the same type of logic to maintain your argument.
>>18630253>I find the claims about Stalin easier to believe because at least they're fairly consistent.Stalin committed mass murder towards members of his own political party (along with thousands of others) and there's documentation of shooting lists with his signature on them or little notes he wrote like, shoot this guy, beat this guy up, execute all 130 of these people, etc.I think Mao went a bit crazy towards the end and started a civil war inside the country (which was the Cultural Revolution), but I think the big famine they had in the late 50s was more them just fucking up in general. It wasn't a deliberate plan to starve people, they didn't know what they were doing. The idea was that ideological enthusiasm could power the country forward but the plans were bad and people were making shit up.
Tankies are dumb BTW but people have a poor understanding of Marxist-Leninist systems (which are/were quite bizarre, just unusual and unique). China more or less went full collectivization of agriculture and the famine happened because of that. It was a Mao program but millions of people participated in it and could be enthusiastic about it. Practically the entire population shifted into a thing called people's communes and they're like MAXIMIZE GRAIN and a whole bunch of party cadre / commanders / officials were just writing down whatever. Then they're like "it's a miracle!" Damn, communism is like a superpower which will turn everyone into gigachads. And if you're not turning people into gigachads then you're doing something wrong and they might shoot you. Then the state takes a bigger share than what actually existed. Do this 10,000x and now millions of people are starving to death.
>>18630189>Because chuds are constantly treading water for their opinions.so much so they even have a chud president in the US, that's how much their voices aren't heard...poor chuddies
>>18630338>I agree that at least 15 million died between 1959 and 1961, is that what you want to hear?Tankies refuse to acknowledge even those numbers, thats the underlying issues. You accept that the CCP committed a mass famine on it's own population, you just think that the numbers presented by the West are incorrect. I'm taking about hardline tankies that openly say "Nothing happened".
>>18630224/thread
>>18630252The British Empire numbers are also sus
>>18630179>political disagreement within the party>30 gazillion perish, most of them eaten by the survivors>GREAT IDEOLOGICAL VICTORY
>>18630235It was very funny when they found out that the underclass were traitors who had been spending generations trying to destroy the USA by eating away at its dirt. The goddamn commie bastards.
> can't move anywhere> rent is killing your wealth-building> Mao had a point about landlordsSimple
>>18631335but all homes in china are rental homes by law and "wealth building" isn't really a thing. I mean it kind of is, but the CCP generally puts a leash on that if they don't like you
>>18630179I don't necessarily think any specific negative thing said about Mao is wrong unless its truly retarded. Yes the Great Famine happened. Yes the cultural revolution wrecked a lot of stuff.The contention isn't that no bad thing you've heard about Mao is true. What I specifically think is that when you subtract the bad from the good, Mao was vastly better than any western political or military leader since Napoleon. Its not that any given bad thing didn't happen, its that the total net effect makes him one of the 2 or 3 greatest world leaders of the last few hundred years.Mao improved his country and the world overall vastly more than any western political leader, again since Napoleon. When you subtract the bad from the good, that's the final reckoning. No politician you think is "good" improved the world more than Mao did overall. Not even close. If Mao loses the civil war China ends up as something more like India today. Mao is inseperable from China's population, 1.5 billion people, having the standard of living and geopolitical strength they do.
>>18631369Not only did Mao oversee a humanitarian miracle in his own right, one of the greatest and largest, extremely fast humanitarian miracles in history in fact, but the more recent rise of China we tend to think of and more readily recognize in the West is predicated on what Mao did. He established real national independence and sovereignty and a political system not controlled by foreigners, and established that systems ability to assert itself and its interests against hostile foreign powers in the Korean war, something China had not been able to do since the Opium Wars. He cleared away the dross and dead weight of Chinese history. Everybody hates India for its caste system and midevil mentality, its patent daily social injustice and evil. What Mao's no good nasty unforgivable landlord campaign was was China getting rid of the kinds of people and social practices that we still see in India today. If India had a Mao, there would be no caste system and they'd be much closer to where China is. The system he established, as a result of its specific ideology, cultivated a literate, quite well educated, enormous national work force. In establishing that work force in the context of a highly independent and disciplined sovereignty, he brought about extraordinary bargaining power with the West for Deng and his successors to negotiate with, leverage absolutely unlike that held by comparable post colonial nations. The reason Mao is hated in the West is precisely because he was a great, world historically bettering figure. If he was overall bad for China, and left China weak and poorer and less stable and ripe for the West to have its way with, you'd almost never hear about him, and when you did there's be none of these hysterics and theatrics. He'd just be trivia. Like any given Indian Prime Minister.
>>18631369>>18631372>1.5 billion*1.4 and dropping lmao
>>18630825When I said chuds, I meant /pol/ nazi tier, not some boomer fart conservative.And yes, it's far more difficult to be a chud fascist nazi than it is to be a commie because one is somewhat socially acceptable while the other is not, even tho they are two sides of the same coin.
>>18631369>>18631372Implessive, as they say. This is a most implessive essay, demonstrating a deep understanding of Mao Communism and the glory of the Chinese Communist Party.
>>18630179When they believe themselves to be in good company, they then either don't care or actively wish he killed more people
>>18631369>If Mao loses the civil war China ends up as something more like India today.And you say this based on what?What nonsense is this.We literally have an example of China if the other side had won, its called Taiwan, and it never subjected itself to famine or mass killings and cultural destruction and dictatorial hellscape. It modernized and industrialized and became a free and open society.>Mao improved his country and the world overall vastly more than any western political leader, again since Napoleon. You say this based on what?What the fuck did Mao do that was so good, that no one else could have done as well if not better?There are multiple leaders who vastly improved their country without the "negatives" that you brush off from Mao. Konrad Adenauer lifted Germany from ruins to the worlds third largest economy.Per Albin Hansson in my own country created living standards that was practically unheard of. The country mostly lived in extreme poverty and mostly agricultural before him. Everything that Sweden is known for today comes from his reforms.So please, shut the fuck up. Anyone could have done the same job as Mao, and it would have been extremely difficult to make a worse job, and extremely easy to do a better job.
>>18631403>and it never subjected itself to famine or mass killings and cultural destruction and dictatorial hellscape.At least the last one it did actually toil under.
>>18631403Being a US frontline vassal against communism with that sweetheart treatment by the hegemon, while also being a relatively small island nation that's in a location thats terrific for trade is very different from being a continental, civilisation of a country that is getting no strategic sweetheart deals from the in fact very hostile hegemon, while having far less coastline relative to inland landmass, which is as a rule harder to develop. Taiwan also had less of the accumulated millennia of local backwardness and inefficiency of the mainland in the first place, or to the extent it was there it now had a basically exogenous new ruling class collapsing on top of it with far less patience for it than they might have had for equivalent social structures on the mainland>Konrad Adenauer lifted Germany from ruins to the worlds third largest economyAnother barrier against communism that the US wanted as a happy vassal, not an exploited colony. That is not the kind of special treatment they wanted to extend to China, or could at that scale if they wanted to. We are talking about a country outside the Imperial core that had never achieved modern development before, not one of the richest countries in the world rebuilding>Hansson in my own country created living standards that was practically unheardWhat about a socdem being able to make headway in early 20th century europe makes you think that has any bearing on a continent scale nation that had been getting ragdolled by colonial powers for 100 years in a situation where the US is a global superpower and sees anything resembling social democracy in the majority of the third world as basically a communist declaration of war on them personally. And to be clear, Sweden was absurdly richer and better to live in than pre-Mao China at every point in the 20th century. What you're saying is just fractally retarded. You end up explaining everything about the world trying to explain every respect in which its wrong
>>18631403And also Taiwan absolutely was a dictatorship that slaughtered people what the fuck are you talking about
>>18631399lmao, they really don't know just how unhinged they look
>>18631442KMT was a bread-and-butter dictatorship but they never went full genocidal maniacs like the mainland communist regime.
>>18631453What genocide did Maoist China commit?
>>18630179t. landlord
>>18631441So TLDR everything is because the US. What a very convenient analyzism that virtually no historian agrees with. It really doesnt matter what anyone tells you because your "its because of the US" is your ace of spades argument to glaze Maos genocidal backwards regime that wasnt unfucked until Deng Xiaoping because this one actually abandoned the marxist lunacy which was the real key to why China is where it is today. You can literally see photos of Shanghai 60 at the start of Dengs rule being nothing but a fishing town.How about we use the "pros outweight the cons" argument on colonialism while we're at it. Should we start talking about colonial leaders as some of the greatest in history because objectively they built infrastrucutre and schools in places where there was nothing, and that the oppressive rule that resulted in a few million deaths and many more millions of suffering was unfortante but ultimately irrelelvant.
>>18631470>So TLDR everything is because the USI don't think that's a good faith, honest reading of what I said, and conversely it seems you're taking an absolutely absurd position that the US isn't a huge factor in a tonne of things across the entire world at any point after WW2.You're not engaging with anything in good faith in fact. You're now just non sequitor ranting and making claims I actually mostly already addressed and argued against. I'm not going to make the same arguments twice just for you to run away from them again to keep impassively restating your opinions from scratch in a self soothing conversation with yourself.
>>18631502No you're not engaging in good faith because virtually all your arguments of any success story that contradicts your "Mao achieved wihat no one had done since Napoleon" you immediately attribute to the US, even when no historian agree with this analysism, even when we're taking into consideration that the KMT in China before they were expelled to Taiwan had begun laying the foundation for modernatization, even when we can directly point to Taiwan as a parallel China, even when we take into considering that that it was Deng Xiaoping who laid the REAL foundations for a successful China, in all of these examples you will immedately crawl to your "USA" argument. And you will use this nonsensical argument which no historians do, to apply to EVERYTHING.I'm willing to bet you're American yourself and been deeply brain infected with some sort of self-loathing yet self obssession. You also completely dodged the colonialism parallel to your logic which is very telling because you know you cannot argue that colonialism was good but at the same time you cannot justify your own logic about Mao as long as someone makes the parallel, because "the pros outweight the cons".
>>18631526In fact, even if we subsrice to your "USA is the cause of everything" narrative, doesnt that also disproves your "Only Mao could have done it"?What I am saying is, wouldnt it then have been better if the KMT won the civil war, and with the aid the US, modernized China?How is that a worse outcome than Mao being the one to do it? You literally have no grounds for believing that Mao was the best for the job and no one else could have done it equally or better, despite the fact that we have infinite amount of examples of that.
>>18631526>I'm not going to make the same arguments twice just for you to run away from them again to keep impassively restating your opinions from scratch in a self soothing conversation with yourself.Also you keep saying analysism. That's not a word.
>>18631390I have a feeling that if you're a fascist normies see you as evil, while if you're a commie they see you as a drooling retard or a larper.
He was a great war leader but the neurosyphilis kicked in later in life and he made absolutely retarded decisions leading to the starvation of 60 million. He redeemed himself though when Nixon came to China setting them on course towards "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (capitalism) leading to
>>18631549 prosperity.
>>18631390>even tho they are two sides of the same coinI mean communism often seamlessly turns into fascism (China) but as psychological phenomena they're different because fascism is based on sociopathy and communism on moralfagging
>>18631531What can I say, despite my overall understanding of english to the point that I can debate politics using it, I can still get some spellings wrong.
>>18631533Maybe, but my point is that being a communist or just a communist apologist, is socially acceptable nontheless.This is not the case if you're a nazi or a nazi sympathizer.
>>18631554I can assure you the fascists saw themselves as morally good. No one believes they're evil, and the worst form of evil usually comes from those who are so convinced that their actions are so good and so necessary that it justifies violence.
>>18631575I assure you there are many people who know well that they are evil and simply don't care.
>>18631568>to the point that I can debate politics using itYou can?
>>18631575Idk what motivated the original fascists but go on X and you'll see the new ones relish in moral transgression. It's either a reaction against the period of woke moralizing which had previously censored the Internet or it's a sign that the post-war liberal consensus increasingly doesn't animate people anymore, perhaps it grew stale over time or something
>>18631595They are extremely few.I'm talking about the social, political, ideologically motivated acts of evil, and this is where acts of evil often originates from a form of self-rightouseness.
>>18631608Can you?
>>18631617Often in vegan threads you have people who say eating meat is immoral but they still do it because it's tasty.
>>18631610I dont think the people you see on X are fascists, not really. The word fascist is extremely propagandized. It has almost completely lost its meaning to simply become a synonym for authoritarian conservative in the west only.And even the word authoritarian seems to be very volative since most people who are called fascists arent strictly authoritarian, they're just playing dirty but still within democratic institutions.
>>18630179It's because of Hasan Piker and the zoomers and turd-worlders who follow him.
