4 ms·

Mao and Stalin both managed to elevate the standard of living of their respective nations significantly during their lives. If you had engaged with history inst

Mao and Stalin both managed to elevate the standard of living of their respective nations significantly during their lives. If you had engaged with history instead of VCF propaganda, you would have realised this.

throwaway6734 5y ago
And their policies resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people
- whydoibother 5y ago
  It is easy to talk about this over 100 years. But that also conveniently lets us ignore that the US was founded on the backs of chattel slavery. Turns out lots of forms of governments can hurt people. But at least the communists/socialists raised all ships, whereas the racist policies of our 'democratic' government only raised a few.
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines because it destroys this place for its intended purpose—and for that reason, we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which politics/ideology they're battling for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cholantesh 5y ago
  There isn't a meaningful consensus on how many people died on their watch, but this claim usually targets the famines of '59-61 (China) and '32-33 (USSR), and casts the blame on the choice each country made to collectivize agriculture. The Chinese famine was the last one it has experienced to date. The only subsequent famine that the USSR underwent were in the 40s, which historians tend to agree was the result of infrastructural damage underwent during WWII. So I mean, yeah, people died on their watch. Probably not as many as you think, though, and certainly fewer than would have died if they continued on as semi-feudal agrarian backwaters.

4 ms·

Mao and Stalin both managed to elevate the standard of living of their respective nations significantly during their lives. If you had engaged with history inst

by cholantesh 5y ago

throwaway6734 5y ago
And their policies resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people
- whydoibother 5y ago
  It is easy to talk about this over 100 years. But that also conveniently lets us ignore that the US was founded on the backs of chattel slavery. Turns out lots of forms of governments can hurt people. But at least the communists/socialists raised all ships, whereas the racist policies of our 'democratic' government only raised a few.
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines because it destroys this place for its intended purpose—and for that reason, we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which politics/ideology they're battling for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cholantesh 5y ago
  There isn't a meaningful consensus on how many people died on their watch, but this claim usually targets the famines of '59-61 (China) and '32-33 (USSR), and casts the blame on the choice each country made to collectivize agriculture. The Chinese famine was the last one it has experienced to date. The only subsequent famine that the USSR underwent were in the 40s, which historians tend to agree was the result of infrastructural damage underwent during WWII. So I mean, yeah, people died on their watch. Probably not as many as you think, though, and certainly fewer than would have died if they continued on as semi-feudal agrarian backwaters.