4 ms·

and, wow, it was true under Mao. In 1960, something like 30 million people starved. GDP up until the 80's was like that of a small US state.

Barrin92 4y ago
while Mao's era was comically brutal and took a wrecking ball to economic development it also unified the country (China's foremost problem throughout thousands of years of history), life expectancy jumped by 30(!) years, and the country obtained universal literacy. Today in India a quarter of the population is still illiterate. The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional, short-sighted and ahistorical given that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence. And of course the rise of China in the following decades invalidates the claim that China 'declined terminally', unless we're literally inverting the meaning of the word 'terminal'.
- refurb 4y ago
  The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional Sorry for getting emotional about 30 million people killed by by a brutal, dictatorial government. Thanks for putting it in perspective! /s
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    I mean does perspective not matter if we're talking about history? The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time. Dynastic historical change in China was always that violent. It's not that unlikely that people in a hundred years, if China continues to develop, look at that period as the foundation for it. No different than our perspective on Napoleon. Incredibly brutal, brought war to Europe, but also implemented the civic code, arguably the most influential legal document in history.
    - refurb 4y ago
      I see a difference between millions of deaths due to war and millions of deaths due to government incompetence/policy/brutality? By your logic the 6 million killed in the Holocaust shouldn't be such a big deal either.
      - Barrin92 4y ago
        Of course it's a big deal, but certainly we're more mature than descending into Godwin's law two posts into the conversation? Mao despite his failures is the foundational figure of modern China. He's not Hitler, who brought ruin not just to the Jewish population but to Germany as well. Mao still matters in China, Hitler doesn't in Germany. It's historically impoverished to grasp for Hitler analogies and having a reflexive panic attack every time Mao is up for discussion. Same with Stalin. Both still have significant influence in Russia and China, among the people as well as leaders and understanding why that is makes some sense.
        refurb 4y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Earlier you said "The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time." I'm not sure how one could interpret that as anything other "no big deal Mao killed a lot of people, lots of people have died in other empires". And you're somehow conflating their legacy with the death toll. Those are separate things. Mao's brutal rule can be condemned while at the same time acknowledging his influence on China today. And I would argue that Hitler had a massive influence on what Germany is today. Look at its role in the EU and its policy towards other countries and conflicts.
- csomar 4y ago
  > that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence Am I reading this correctly? As in to have the modern Europe, you'd have needed WW2?
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    not only modern Europe itself is the consequence of war, but so are its individual nation states. Bismarck explicitly engineered the three so-called unification wars because he believed that German unity was only achievable while facing an enemy, hence the symbolic founding of the nation in Versailles. Same is true for America really. The country transformed twice, once through civil war and then into a superpower with a modern state during World War II. Military competition and war both internal and external are by far the strongest drivers of modernization.
bigbillheck 4y ago
> In 1960, something like 30 million people starved. Interestingly if you check wikipedia it appears that China had major famines every decade or up until that particular one, and nothing since then.

Barrin92 4y ago

while Mao's era was comically brutal and took a wrecking ball to economic development it also unified the country (China's foremost problem throughout thousands of years of history), life expectancy jumped by 30(!) years, and the country obtained universal literacy. Today in India a quarter of the population is still illiterate. The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional, short-sighted and ahistorical given that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence. And of course the rise of China in the following decades invalidates the claim that China 'declined terminally', unless we're literally inverting the meaning of the word 'terminal'.

refurb 4y ago
The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional Sorry for getting emotional about 30 million people killed by by a brutal, dictatorial government. Thanks for putting it in perspective! /s
- Barrin92 4y ago
  I mean does perspective not matter if we're talking about history? The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time. Dynastic historical change in China was always that violent. It's not that unlikely that people in a hundred years, if China continues to develop, look at that period as the foundation for it. No different than our perspective on Napoleon. Incredibly brutal, brought war to Europe, but also implemented the civic code, arguably the most influential legal document in history.
  - refurb 4y ago
    I see a difference between millions of deaths due to war and millions of deaths due to government incompetence/policy/brutality? By your logic the 6 million killed in the Holocaust shouldn't be such a big deal either.
    - Barrin92 4y ago
      Of course it's a big deal, but certainly we're more mature than descending into Godwin's law two posts into the conversation? Mao despite his failures is the foundational figure of modern China. He's not Hitler, who brought ruin not just to the Jewish population but to Germany as well. Mao still matters in China, Hitler doesn't in Germany. It's historically impoverished to grasp for Hitler analogies and having a reflexive panic attack every time Mao is up for discussion. Same with Stalin. Both still have significant influence in Russia and China, among the people as well as leaders and understanding why that is makes some sense.
      - refurb 4y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Earlier you said "The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time." I'm not sure how one could interpret that as anything other "no big deal Mao killed a lot of people, lots of people have died in other empires". And you're somehow conflating their legacy with the death toll. Those are separate things. Mao's brutal rule can be condemned while at the same time acknowledging his influence on China today. And I would argue that Hitler had a massive influence on what Germany is today. Look at its role in the EU and its policy towards other countries and conflicts.
csomar 4y ago
> that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence Am I reading this correctly? As in to have the modern Europe, you'd have needed WW2?
- Barrin92 4y ago
  not only modern Europe itself is the consequence of war, but so are its individual nation states. Bismarck explicitly engineered the three so-called unification wars because he believed that German unity was only achievable while facing an enemy, hence the symbolic founding of the nation in Versailles. Same is true for America really. The country transformed twice, once through civil war and then into a superpower with a modern state during World War II. Military competition and war both internal and external are by far the strongest drivers of modernization.

bigbillheck 4y ago

> In 1960, something like 30 million people starved. Interestingly if you check wikipedia it appears that China had major famines every decade or up until that particular one, and nothing since then.