3 ms·

When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? The famines were environmental, for centuries. It was only collectivisation and

• HideousKojima 5y ago
  >When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? Yes, because destroying private property rights will lead to further famines. It's something called second-order effects, which Communists seem utterly incapable of understanding. >The famines were environmental, for centuries. None were ever on the scale of those caused by the Soviets, Mao, and others, so they clearly weren't just environmental. >It was only collectivisation and industrialisation of agriculture that stopped the famines. Industrialization is doing some Atlas-tier lifting for the rest of your argument in that sentence. Collectivization did nothing to stop famines unless you count causing millions to die and thereby having fewer mouths to feed in the following years. Reversing collectivization, on the other hand, increased food output six-fold in Xiaogang, China: http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_11778487_2.htm http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_11778487_2.ht... Edit: Note that the villagers of Xiaogang had to undo collectivization in secret because they risked literally life imprisonment and execution. They even made pacts with each other to care for the others' children until adulthood if any of them were caught and executed. Edit2: Since HN won't let me reply to your response directly, here it is. I lived in the Czech Republic and befriended countless people rich and poor who suffered under the evils of Communism. Communism has led to political violence in every single country that has adopted it, without exception. For a good historical overview (since you implied I haven't read any boons on the matter) I would recommend From the Gulag to the Killing Fields, which contains excerpts of historical accounts from every single country that established Communist regimes. You support a Godless ideology of murder, oppression, and lies.
  • lucian1900 5y ago
    First order effects surely should not be ignored merely because second order effects exist. Starving because someone might be upset they are no longer a lord is illogical. You should read some history books, you appear to have instead accepted western propaganda.
  • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    ">When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? Yes, because destroying private property rights will lead to further famines. It's something called second-order effects" There is this really interesting second order effect I heard about, very few people know about it - apparently masses of starving people might not just quietly watch their family succumb to famine, sometimes they start cutting off heads of whoever is in charge, or just is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    • HideousKojima 5y ago
      >sometimes they start cutting off heads of whoever is in charge I wish they'd actually done so to Stalin, seeing as he was the one in charge and his policies were the cause of the famine. Instead, it seems like the majority swallowed his propaganda blaming the kulaks hook, line, and sinker.
      • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Indeed, seems like French are better at it and more decisive.
      • lucian1900 5y ago
        Or the white army and the kulaks were indeed to blame and people at the time understood that, while you swallowed propaganda blaming the Bolsheviks.
  • jmeister 5y ago
    This stuff should be history 101. It’s depressing to see someone here having to state the biggest lessons of the 20th century, learnt by the spilling of the blood of millions.