4 ms·

Most famines of the post industrial era have been man-made. Sure, droughts are natural, but allowing people to starve is a choice.

Swizec 4y ago
I'm using empty stomachs figuratively here. You don't need an actual famine to enable the rise of fascism. And it isn't always fascist authoritarianism either. 1910's Russia and 1930's China got the communist kind. 1940's Balkans got both kinds, but communists won the civil war.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > 1910’s Russia and 1930’s China got the communist kind Other than superficial rhetoric, there is not a lot of substantive difference between Lenin/Stalin/Maoism and the common factors set of things that are more commonly referred to as fascism (Italian Fascism, German Naziism, etc.)
  - Swizec 4y ago
    The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. At least that’s my lay understanding.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Not as much as the rhetoric makes it seems. > Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. Fascists usually integrate the rich that the leadership doesn’t have some other reason to hate into the system, while liquidating those–and not always just their holdings–that don’t fit that description, even if wealthy, so long as they are willing to cooperate, retaining their nominal property but with their actual power and influence more determined by their degree of attachment to the regime, not their nominal ownership of property (that’s a consequence of the authoritarian corporatist–viewing all institutions of society as necessary subordinate to a single vision–aspect of fascism.) Leninists (et al.)…do pretty much the same thing, except that they are more likely to not allow even nominal ownership of property. But since Leninism is (and its derivates are) also an authoritarian corporatist system, it is not ownership of property but position (formal or informal) in the ruling heirarchy that really allows you direct the use of property, just as in fascism.
      - srean 4y ago
        Do you mind breaking up the sentences for ease of comprehension. Reading it made me feel a little out of breath and I lost the plot mid sentence. I know there is an interesting thought here, but the prose is a tad to turgid.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  In my timeline, Russia spent most of the 1910s under Tsarist rule and China spent the entirety of the 1930s under either warlords or the Japanese.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Didn’t Russia bail out of WW1 in 1917 to do its revolution away from Tsarist rule? That’s the 1910’s. You’re right that the Chinese communist revolution happened in 1948. For some reason I thought it was 10 years earlier.
codefreeordie 4y ago
This famine will also be man-made.

Swizec 4y ago

I'm using empty stomachs figuratively here. You don't need an actual famine to enable the rise of fascism. And it isn't always fascist authoritarianism either. 1910's Russia and 1930's China got the communist kind. 1940's Balkans got both kinds, but communists won the civil war.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> 1910’s Russia and 1930’s China got the communist kind Other than superficial rhetoric, there is not a lot of substantive difference between Lenin/Stalin/Maoism and the common factors set of things that are more commonly referred to as fascism (Italian Fascism, German Naziism, etc.)
- Swizec 4y ago
  The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. At least that’s my lay understanding.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Not as much as the rhetoric makes it seems. > Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. Fascists usually integrate the rich that the leadership doesn’t have some other reason to hate into the system, while liquidating those–and not always just their holdings–that don’t fit that description, even if wealthy, so long as they are willing to cooperate, retaining their nominal property but with their actual power and influence more determined by their degree of attachment to the regime, not their nominal ownership of property (that’s a consequence of the authoritarian corporatist–viewing all institutions of society as necessary subordinate to a single vision–aspect of fascism.) Leninists (et al.)…do pretty much the same thing, except that they are more likely to not allow even nominal ownership of property. But since Leninism is (and its derivates are) also an authoritarian corporatist system, it is not ownership of property but position (formal or informal) in the ruling heirarchy that really allows you direct the use of property, just as in fascism.
    - srean 4y ago
      Do you mind breaking up the sentences for ease of comprehension. Reading it made me feel a little out of breath and I lost the plot mid sentence. I know there is an interesting thought here, but the prose is a tad to turgid.
bigbillheck 4y ago
In my timeline, Russia spent most of the 1910s under Tsarist rule and China spent the entirety of the 1930s under either warlords or the Japanese.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Didn’t Russia bail out of WW1 in 1917 to do its revolution away from Tsarist rule? That’s the 1910’s. You’re right that the Chinese communist revolution happened in 1948. For some reason I thought it was 10 years earlier.

codefreeordie 4y ago

This famine will also be man-made.