Anonymous #2 2w

I think the point is that people shouldn't have to die for this to happen.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

If tens of millions have to die to create the perfect system, then it isn’t the perfect system is it? The perfect system is one that’s achieved without suffering and death on a horrific scale

12

Anonymous #3 2w

Estimates range from 40-80 million. None of those numbers are acceptable

7

Anonymous OP 2w

The most credible estimates are around 30 million, the vast majority during the disaster that was the Great Leap Forward. There numbers keep getting inflated as Cold War propaganda. Still not excusable, but let’s keep in mind the context that capitalism kills 10-20 million people per year in its default state

5

Anonymous #1 2w

Well yeah but ideally nobody should suffer ever, that’s just not reality. I’m not saying that there necessarily is a valuable trade off in this example but there could theoretically be one, and if so that decision would be worth thinking about.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Given the sheer chaos of the Great Leap Forward and cultural revolution years, if anything the numbers are HIGHER than many estimates. Once again, historical estimates sit at around 40-80 million. I’m not sure why people are trying to justify this and I’m confused as to how there are grown adults defending one of the worst leaders in human history

1

Anonymous #2 2w

It’s just a much bigger version of the trolley problem, with much less clear tradeoffs. Which is why I say that I’d never agree to such a policy, even if it would theoretically result in less human suffering overall

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Perfect doesn’t exist, I don’t think anyone was claiming a perfect system could be built. The thing to consider is ‘will this action, which requires the death of 70 million people, result in less human suffering overall?’ If 70 million people need to die for 100 billion + future people to live amazing lives devoid of most suffering, that might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Or, we find a way to achieve less human suffering without 70 million people dying. And it’s not like a beautiful future was created out of that death and suffering in China. It’s a repressive dictatorship that’s squashed human rights and is committing a genocide against an ethnic minority while constantly threatening war with its neighbors. But hey they have fast trains and pretty neon skylines so it was all worth it

0

Anonymous #2 2w

I mean that’s why we send young men to die in our wars (at least our older wars like WWII). We figure that these men’s deaths will allow far more people to live far better lives. The tradeoff makes sense. Unlike this example though I would never personally be ok with the 70 million Chinese lives trade off situation. The benefits are so uncertain and the suffering of those people is so immense.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

On the basic level we all understand the principle of tradeoffs. But this person in particular is completely fucking insane. You should see their next reply to me

1

Anonymous OP 2w

You can’t just type the first thing the Google AI spits out at you about a topic and expect to be taken seriously. If Mao was so exceptionally awful for the Chinese people then why do Chinese people still view him positively? (Keep in mind that Deng and successive leaders were highly critical of Mao and highlighted his atrocities, so you’re not gonna be able to pull the brainwashed card here.)

0

Anonymous #3 2w

It’s the benefit of an actual education in this subject. Why do many people in Russia still view Stalin well? Probably because A, the majority of them didn’t live under the horrific times those men created, and B, the reality has been wiped away and they’ve been presented with a sanitized, approved version in which even if the atrocities are recognized, they’re somehow justified through the intricate historical revisionism that dictators are so good at. Like are you messing with me right now?

3

Anonymous #3 2w

Its literally illegal to publicly criticize Mao in China.

6

Anonymous #3 2w

You also have to be careful about estimates coming from western sources since many of them use shoddy methodology to make socialist governments look worse than they actually were. 20 million is a reasonable estimate for GLF (the Deng government’s estimate sat at 16.5 million). 20 million needless deaths is still a tragedy and an unforgivable policy mistake, but it’s telling that you’re offended by putting that number in the context of the needless deaths capitalism causes under normal conditions

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Can’t wait to hear how they tell you that’s just western propaganda

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Offended by what exactly? Tens of millions of deaths that occurred under a madman whom people still try and praise? Yeah, that’s pretty shocking.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Heres the context: the great chinese famine was the deadliest famine in human history. No society has ever seen starvation on that scale.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

No absolutely. Ik I’m being a bit pedantic, taking a devils advocate stance. I don’t agree with what they did in china and obviously it wasn’t worth it at all.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Send the reply 👀👀

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I know I’m not talking to someone who knows history cause you seem incapable of reading comprehension and critical thinking. Not entertaining your baby brain any more

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

Yeah if I thought like that you’d need to waterboard that out of me lmao. Then again if I thought like that I probably wouldn’t see anything wrong with the statement in the first place

1

Anonymous #3 2w

I don’t understand why you’re upset. You’re being presented with information. I’m not making fun of you, calm down

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Yeah the moment I saw this mf say “subjects” I was like alright there’s no point lmao

1

Anonymous OP 2w

It’s the afterthought of “dating” right after “subjects” that does it for me 💀

1

Anonymous #2 2w

I don’t know if this indicates an Andrew Tate education or not lmao

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I’m not frustrated cause I think you’re making fun of me, I’m frustrated cause you are either illiterate or pretending to be. You’ve not honestly engaged with a single point I’ve made other than the numbers thing, and the “information” you’ve presented is cold warrior bullshit. The Black Book of Communism, for example, counts “non-births” as deaths caused by communism. What are non births? They are people that would have been born if birth rates had not declined.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

In other words, increasing development and access to family planning is counted as killing people for the sake of capitalist ideology. And the black book estimated Mao’s total death toll at 65 million. Need I remind you that capitalism kills 10-20 million people worldwide each YEAR under normal conditions

1

Anonymous #3 2w

You should probably read the book before you make inaccurate claims. Non-births are not included in their count.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

I thought you weren’t entertaining my baby brain any more, which is it? Oh my bad, I mean “goo goo gaga I hate dictators gooogoo”

0

Anonymous #3 2w

I’m curious how you got your 10 or 20 million number. Surely your source is much more reputable than the black book of communism.

8

Anonymous #4 2w

The CCP put together their annual unbiased council of nonpartisan historical review and determined that only 12 people died in China during the Cold War

7