A topic about why all the anti communism in USA and stuff...

[ironduck]

I must have been asleep in history class when they discussed the Maoist gas chambers and industrial killing floors then.

I don't know if you were asleep, but we didn't learn much about this in our history classes. Although Mao did not industrialize murder quite the way Hitler did, he is still responsible for the killing of between 40 and 70 million people.

This includes purges, ethnic and cultural 'cleansing', labour camps, and disregard of famine caused as a direct result of his policy.

 

[WeimingS]

Right, they were a byproduct of his policies. He didn't order those millions of people to be killed. They were starved (due to unproductive farms), not murdered. I believe there is a thread that already clears this up.

 

[ironduck]

Right, they were a byproduct of his policies. He didn't order those millions of people to be killed. They were starved (due to unproductive farms), not murdered. I believe there is a thread that already clears this up.

Even if you ignore the starvation, the labour camps (15-20 million dead), the ethnic and cultural cleansing (primarily tibet) (0.5 - 1 million dead), and the purges (2 million dead) were direct orders from Mao. They were not 'byproducts'.

Further, the 'cultural revolution' happened on Mao's direct orders (0.5 - 1 million dead).

Source: various sources listed on this website http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

 

[WeimingS]

Right, the keywords are "labour camps" and "purges", rather than "death camps" and "rounding up a race of people and exterminating them with poisonous gas." Mao's intent wasn't to exterminate 10 million people just because they were a certain race. The huge deathtolls (10-20 million) were indirectly afflicted through policy. Hitler's a different case, as manslaughter is not the same as first degree murder.

 

[luiz]

I must have been asleep in history class when they discussed the Maoist gas chambers and industrial killing floors then.

Are gas chambers the only way to commit genocide?
What about the countless executions of "enemies of the people"? What about the destruction of tibetan temples and murder of their monks? What about the Cultural Revolution?

That's irrelevant. The car ownership ratio in Brazil is 1 car for every 11 people. The point is that a significant number of people in China can afford cars. There's a large and growing middle class. It's not "dirt poor". My point stands.

And the car rate ownership in China is 1 car for every 89 people...
How's that irrelevant? This just shows how small the chinese middle class is in relation to the total population.
If the car rate ownership in China is 8 times smaller than that of a nation as poor as Brazil, it is safe to say that China is dirt poor. My point stands.

Don't remember saying that...

You didn't, but another poster I was discussing with here did. I was under the impression that you agreed with him.

but again, back on topic. I don't think $6000 USD a year GDP per capita qualifies China as "dirt poor".

I think it does.

I don't know what kind of twisted criterion you're using, but the fact stands that China ranks among the 2nd quartile when it comes to GDP per capita.

No it does not. Check the link I provided. China ranks in 121 out of 132 nations. That's the poorer half. And it would be even worse, if it was not for extreme fragmentation of sub-saharan Africa.

The India GDP growth over the past decade averaged around 5%, while China's averaged 9%. Not much exaggeration here. Stretching your argument a little thin, eh? Care to comment on my other misinformed Indian statistics?

Actually, India's average growth since 1994 was of 6.8% (check the same link I provided on their current growth rate). That's hardly "half of the chinese one", and apparently you're the one misinformed on indian stats.

Can you link me to where I said that?

Your exact words were:
Perhaps you're really perturbed that such an evil communist empire can flourish, while morally superior democracies lol: ) like India and Latin American countries crawl along with stagnating economies and low literacy rates.
You can find them on your first post addressed to me. Ready to take it back?

According to your CIA website (we all know how reliable a source that didn't officially recognize the People's Republic until the 1970s can be, when it comes to information about China), China's "richer" than about 12 out of 20 Latin American countries.

I'll take the CIA World Factbook over Wiki any day of the week. As far as I'm concerned, you may have written the articles you linked too. Furthermore the CIA gives a pretty high GDP for China, compared to some other sources I've seen.
And according to the link I provided China is poorer than 12 Latin American nations (14 if you count the french ones) and richer than 9, most of which are small caribbean nations. China is poorer than all big Latin American nations.

Can you please link me to where I made all those spurious comments?

You didn't make the Mercedes claim, that was another chinese nationalist. But you claimed that China is not very poor, which is also a lie.

I already did. Consult the list of all world countries.

I already did, and China is at the poorer half.
And regardless of the position, are you seriously suggesting that people can live decently with 5,600 dollars a year? That's much below the poverty line in any western nation. (And remember, don't argue that things are cheaper there, because those 5,600 dollars are already adjusted to PPP!)

Luiz, your posts are becoming less and less coherent. The drivel you're spewing out is meadering off topic.

IIRC, my only interjections were about your comment that China is (and I quote) "miserable and dirt poor" (those seem to be your only vocabulary when describing China), as if you were describing an African country. Please stay on topic.

I don't blame you though. Most of my friends have similar viewpoints. They think that modern China is still a country of rickshaws and straw hats. But I've seen first hand at how different China is from ten years ago, let alone 30 years ago. Maoist China was "dirt poor". Modern China is not. They're about as different as Hoover's America and Clinton's America. Don't equate the two.

Bah. Address the real issue. The average chinese makes 5,600 dollars a year, after adjustment for purchasing power partity. This grants them a horrible living standard.

Again, please don't troll and accuse me of hating the chinese people. If I hated chinese people I would alse hate the taiwanese, the 50,000 chinese who lives in Rio and etc.
My point, from the start, was that Communism screwed China so bad that even after 3 decades of reforms they're still a very poor nation. This truthful statement got me instantly called a ***** and outraged all chinese nationalists who can't stand criticism.

Stating that China is poor doens't mean offense to the chinese people. Only a extremed nationalist, bordering a fascist, would take offense in such a claim. I certainly don'y feel offended when someone makes the same remark about my nation; actually I'm the first one to make it.

 

[ironduck]

Right, the keywords are "labour camps" and "purges", rather than "death camps" and "rounding up a race of people and exterminating them with poisonous gas." Mao's intent wasn't to exterminate 10 million people just because they were a certain race. The huge deathtolls (10-20 million) were indirectly afflicted through policy. Hitler's a different case, as manslaughter is not the same as first degree murder.

Your arguments are really wearing thin. Many of those who died in the nazi concentration camps were not gassed, they died of starvation, beating, disease, cold. Just like Gulag. Just like in Mao's camps. But perhaps those deaths don't count? Tell that to all the millions of people who were put in those camps in China with the purpose never to get out again. Oh, and do you know what 'purges' are? They are mass executions. Nice word, huh? Just like 'cleansing' - another word for mass execution. The 'cleansing' in Tibet was not about race, but about ethnicity and culture. Does that make it somehow better?

Mao is one of the biggest mass murderers of all time, the numbers speak for themselves. Being an apologist to Mao is no better than David's Irwing's claims that the nazi holocaust never took place.

 

[Headline]

Til today, the USA does not recognize Communist countries as legal nations. But seriously, why?

Please read the book, 1984

And please, think of it in a non American capitalist mind. Why is Communism so bad?

1. It is impossible to achieve. Anyone who think utopia is possible needs to have their brain checked. Anyone who actually does it needs to be arrested because they are dangerous.

2. It is economically not feasible. If you study the economy philosophy such as Adam Smith, there is an invisible hand adjusting the price of goods. The commies think they can dictate the price of goods. They also think they, by themselves, can somehow control the production base on what they think the society needs. All these controls violate the rule of economy.

3. Communism destroys individuality. In a communist society, the government thinks for people. People are like drones. The government ration goods base on what they, few people, think rather than what individual thinks. Individuality is what makes people human. It is what makes people different. People think differently is what makes society advance in the past 500 years.


4. Communism is base on false assumptions and over generalization. Communism suggests that class struggle has existed and it will continue to exist. Communist offers a way out of the class struggle. The class struggle myth has been destroyed. In the 21st century, corporations base on stock market have revolutionize class structure. A company is no longer owned by a few elites but by the general public. A CEO can be fired if he or she does not perform well. The rich people no longer have 100% control of their wealth. Instead, they rely on the corporations. Because a corporation can get wealthier by selling its products to the mass, it listens to the people, who consume those goods. The consumers, now, have the power to control the society.

5. Communism is anti-democracy. Communism is an elitist system contrary to what it claims. The person who makes the decision on what to produce has the absolute power. Communist leaders think people cannot govern themselves. They think people are dumb like babies and must need their leaderships. As the result, they always have some sort of dictatorship. After they become the leader, some are afraid of letting go, so they will do anything to keep their power. They are afraid of the media and the people because they fear criticisms. Criticisms can easily destroy a leader. The solution is simple. One, use national security and national welfare as an excuse to prevent a general election of a new leader. Two, brainwash people into belief usually through nationalism. Three, control the media. Communism does NOT work for the people.

6. Violent (with weapon) overthrown of government, social structure and culture is the most radical thought people can have. It is against the development of civilization.

Is it because of the idealogy? Cause, the ideology is damn good.

Communism is one of the biggest scam in the history of mankind. It is an idea that promise equality but end up having the opposite effect.

Corruption does happen. The government does have almost total power. People do have less rights. But it is necessary. Think about hugely populated countries like China.

Why is it necessary? If you studied economic theory of Adam Smith, you will find out that the government does not have to control everything, a free market system will automatically adjust itself. The government does not know what a person want. Those top elites rest in their house eating huge dinner while people suffer outside. Why would they know? The government should only act as a referee, not a player of economy.

If the government does not control stuff, like censor the TV, and allow things like labour unions to take on strikes and stuff, the countries would go into chaos in a snap just because there'll be so much more people demanding for better wages, better conditions, and general *****ing about everything. The country needs to be ruthless to controll.

Do you think people would just strike for fun? Do you think people would just demand a better living condition for no reason? Those issues are "social problems". The government is supposed to solve the problems and not "cover" up the problems. People strike because there isn’t enough money to support the family. People are asking for a better living condition because their life sucks. They complain about freedom because they want to do something but the government interferes with their wish.

If a government does not solve the problems, it will obviously be hard to control all those angers. However, cover it up and pretend it doesn't happen is just refusing to acknowledge the reality.

Democracy provides a way for people to solve their own problems. For example, I call a representative of a party and tell him about my problem with the society. He reports to a presidential candidate. The president candidate promises to solve the problem on media. I vote for him because he promises to solve my problem. After he becomes a president, the media report that the president does not solve the problem. Next time, not only will I not vote for him, I will not vote for his party. One of the faults of communism is its refusal to let other party involve. If people have the right to vote, they won't have any other choice.

I know this probably isnt a very good history topic, more about politics, but you can relate to it. Like the Tianamen square incident, most western countries see it as an atrocity. But think about it, the students wanted change. They squated in front of the parliamentry building, Tianamen Square. That was a challenge to China's government. If that was actually allowed to progress, chaos would've broke out

A couple thousands of people marching on the capital = your society has major problem. The government should serve the people and not the other way around. It's always the government's fault when it happens and never never people's fault. The government can agree to solve the problem and be over with. Instead, the government is no longer the humble servant. It becomes the master of people.

What would your government do, if your power was threatened? What would you do, if the rule in your country is threatened?

Negotiation is the key to governing. A government can negotiate with the students and reach a compromise.

By the way, I am Chinese, born in China. I now live in Canada. I see **** about human rights protest, strikes, and general *****ing everyday, and I seirously think that maybe the government should just do something to shut those people up. They're not helping to make society better...

Criticism is what fuels social progress. Without those people coming to tell the media and us the problems, the other people would not know. The representatives would not know. The top official would not know. Those people are actually helping to make the society better.


Finally, I just want to say
Communism is one of the largest scam in human history. It does the opposite of what it claims to do. The CCP is even worst. It claims communism but practices capitalism!

 

[Headline]

I might sound a lil angry and biased when it comes to this, but hey, I have my own ideas...

You guys have no idea WTH you're talking about when you say Chinese people dont consider the lack of human rights in China. The truth is, there is plenty of rights in China, as long as you're happy with what you get, and you dont constantly ***** about everything.

Constantly ***** about everything is a fundamental human right. If I want I can ***** any time in the public. If I want I can ****** about the government to the government.

And that you dont start a revolt.

Revolt is also a human right. If the government does not yield to my demand, I can overthrow the government. Obviously, if I do it alone, the government has the right to arrest me if I actually break the law. However, if there are thousands and milliions of people do the same thing. The government is at fault.

The government feeds you, it provides you with a good education, it gives you a good life. I enjoy that good life I lived.

Government is not my parents. I wouldn't want they to provide for me. Government cannot be the parents, the teachers, the police and everything at the same time because it does not specialized its tasks. The nearest federal building is 40 miles away from my home. They don't know what I want and how much money I need. Then, I have to work to support myself. I provide the money to "buy" the education for the future. I provide the government with the money to build road. It is I who support me, not the government. I don't be lazy and ask the government for money. It is a communist way.

Both my parents were of upper status in China, meaning they had a good education (they're both university students, the first ones allowed after that incident in the 60s-70s time, I dont know what its called in English), and that they both got good jobs. I was brought up to love the Communist, because they never interfeared with my lifes, and we have no thoughts of protest/revolt.

You are rich and powerful. Why would you not love the communists? If you truly believe in communism, why not donate all of your money to the government? It is the communist way.

I see protests in "democratic" countries as general *****ing, its just an opinion. I am sure many of you hate strikes, where school gets canceled.

Let's say. If a teacher doesn't get paid well, they will give half of what they are capable. Later on, nobody would want to be a teacher. Education will not be as good. Strike is actually helping the society.

Where I live, public transit was out for almost 10 months because of a stupid strike, and I dont think anyone enjoyed that.

So you are blaming the strike on those people? Think about it. If you go to work, your boss decide to give you half of what you should be getting. Are you going to keep working?

The government had to "force" them back to work, which most of the strikers probably thought it was undemocratic, but I see that they're just being discontent with what they're getting. I see that the government did the right thing for legislating them back to work.

It has nothing to do with democracy. It is just an abuse of human rights. The government can fire all of those who went on the strike, which will cost them a lot of money. Using legislation to accomplish the goal is just barbaric. This is another example of the government and the union not willing to negotiate and compromise.

Off course events like the Tianamen square was bad. But think about it, what could've the government done? Course the protest was a good one, but it threatened order. Chaos would've broken out, look at the damn population of the country! China isnt your rich western country where people would listen to the government and follow everything cause they actually have something to live for and will consider! They're low class people, who have no pocession but their own lives! People wont simply listen and leave!

Why don't you give them half of your wealth? They don't have freedom and then they don't have wealth. You won't even let them have freedom. If you give them the right terms, they will leave. It's not like they are asking too much.

I mean, consider this. The recent tsunami. Those poor countries, like Thailand, and I dont know, the other small countries there that was effected. Alot of deaths were because the people were trying to get their fish they're drying from the beach so it doesnt get wet. They're not going to leave if you tell them to evacuate! Its very likely that they wont leave until you shoot someone and force them to! THINK ABOUT IT!

You are making a wrong comparison. Those who are in Tianman are educated college students that knows right and wrong. Beside, who the hell are those top people think they are? They think they can win every argument by military force? The students are not wrong and I think the government should yield to their demands. At least consider their opinions in the future.

And for the person who said its a dumb idea to have a government tell you what to do, I am sorry, but I am very angry at that comment. Course I know what Communism is. Socialism is the key to a utopian society, and though Communism has some bad things, its NOT rotten to the core. Ever consider Fascism? If you call Communism rotten to the call, what do you call Nazism and that?! Think about it!

It is a dumb idea. I do whatever I want to as long as I don't interfere with other people's right. I don't mean the "public" right. The public has no right. Human rights (individual's rights) out weights the public interest. Using any public area and service is not a human right. You don't have to take a transit to school. You can walk to school. The transit workers don't have to service you.

If I want to wear white because I think it fits my personality. Who the hell is the government to tell me to wear some other color? "Greater good" or "public interest" is simply an excuse to limit my right.

I know most of you live in a western society, and that you're probably not going to give this much of a thought about why you hate Communism. But hey, this is from me, a Chinese guy. So its probably just a difference of opinion...

Communism is evil... no doubt about it

 

[WeimingS]

Are gas chambers the only way to commit genocide?
What about the countless executions of "enemies of the people"?

There's a difference between killing a few political enemies to stay in power, and marshalling the efforts of an entire nation to systematically exterminate a race. Please recognise that.

What about the destruction of tibetan temples and murder of their monks? What about the Cultural Revolution?

What about them? I'd read a little into them first.

Millions of people died from famine. They weren't killed by Mao's soldiers in concentration camps. Tibetan temples were destroyed and Tibet's theocratic dictators were killed by the Red Guards, when China fell into chaos and society broke down. Hitler's genocide wasn't accompanied by breakdown of society. In fact, the killing process was very calculated and industrialised. There were mathematicians working to calculate the most effective way to kill. In case you haven't caught on, the two incidences can't be compared.

And the car rate ownership in China is 1 car for every 89 people...
How's that irrelevant?

Try to understand.

The car ownership ratio for investment bankers on Manhattan is probably even smaller. That doesn't make them poor.

74 million potential car owners in China signifies a large sector of Chinese society is middle-class and well off. It's not "dirt poor", as you so readily suggest.

You didn't, but another poster I was discussing with here did. I was under the impression that you agreed with him.

Guilty by association, eh.

No it does not. Check the link I provided. China ranks in 121 out of 132 nations.

Actually, it's 121 out of 232. Wikipedia says it ranks 97/192. Its source is the International Monetary Fund, which I would say is the more reliable source when it comes to economics.

Actually, India's average growth since 1994 was of 6.8% (check the same link I provided on their current growth rate). That's hardly "half of the chinese one", and apparently you're the one misinformed on indian stats.

Really? This graph begs to differ

The GDP change even dips to 4% for some years. Even if Indian GDP growth averaged 5.5%-6%, my statement still doesn't exaggerate too much. But you're arguing over semantics here. In the end, your original claim that "China is on pair with India" is decidedly false.

Your exact words were:
Perhaps you're really perturbed that such an evil communist empire can flourish, while morally superior democracies lol: ) like India and Latin American countries crawl along with stagnating economies and low literacy rates.

staggering=stagnating?

I'll take the CIA World Factbook over Wiki any day of the week. As far as I'm concerned, you may have written the articles you linked too.

Check the page history. Those figures come from reputable sources, like the World Fact book and the IMF.

And regardless of the position, are you seriously suggesting that people can live decently with 5,600 dollars a year?

Haha, I can picture a bratty teenage girl saying the exact same thing. "Are you seriously suggesting that there are people in the world who can live without cable TV?" Your incredulity doesn't make your claims factual. Broaden your horizons my friend.

That's much below the poverty line in any western nation.

China's poorer than France, Britain and Germany? Really?
But you seem to think China's as poor as Congo or Bangladesh. That's an unequivocal lie.

(And remember, don't argue that things are cheaper there, because those 5,600 dollars are already adjusted to PPP!)

There are also no taxes in China. Most Chinese citizens are farmers who grow their own food. Not everyone has Western-type expenses. And people who can't afford two cars and a bungalow aren't "dirt poor". Believe it or not, there's a huge difference of living standards between Chinese farmers and Somalian farmers.

Bah. Address the real issue. The average chinese makes 5,600 dollars a year, after adjustment for purchasing power partity.

Jesus Christ, I just enumerated the contested claims. It's impossible to debate with youl.

This grants them a horrible living standard.

Ad nauseum.

Only a extremed nationalist, bordering a fascist, would take offense in such a claim.

Ad hominem.

My point, from the start, was that Communism screwed China so bad that even after 3 decades of reforms they're still a very poor nation. This truthful statement got me instantly called a ***** and outraged all chinese nationalists who can't stand criticism.

Therein lies the contested claim, and the real issue. What is your definition of "very poor"? It seems to be any country incapable of sustaining wholesale western lifestyle.

That, to me, seems to be an unfair definition of "very poor". If China is "very poor", then what status can be ascribed to Tanzania? Or the nearly 100 countries that are more poor than China?

That was my gripe with your original post. You painted a distorted picture of China. You describe China like it was in the 1970s. You were also quick to belittle China by aggrandizing other countries, like India. That, to me, seemed very unreasonable. Whether or not you intrinsically hate China can't be proven, but you're certainly suggestive of that in your tone.

This ridiculous debate can be concluded if we both agree on the definition of "very poor".

How about:

Rich (GDP >= $20 000 USD) - America, France, Britain, Spain, etc.
Wealthy ($10 000 <= GDP < $20 000) - Hungary, Kuwait, Poland, Mexico, etc.
Moderate ($5 000 <= GDP < $10 000) - China, Brazil, Turkey, etc.
Poor ($2 000 <= GDP < $5 000) - Cuba, Honduras, Ghana, etc.
Very poor (GDP <$2000) - Haiti, Mozambique, Somalia, Kenya, etc.

 

[WeimingS]

Many of those who died in the nazi concentration camps were not gassed, they died of starvation, beating, disease, cold.

Irrelevant. The Gulags and labour camps didn't have gas chambers designed to kill. They didn't have doctors performing vivisections either. Nor did they have crematoriums. Or lampshades made from human skin. It's unbelievable that you could compare a Nazi concentration camp with a pseudo-prison labour camp.

Oh, and do you know what 'purges' are? They are mass executions. Nice word, huh? Just like 'cleansing' - another word for mass execution.

Are you trying to compare Stalinist purges with the Holocaust? Oiveh, hope there aren't any Jewish people in here. How many political enemies did Stalin kill? 100? 500? Probably, but definitely not 11 million. Compare it to Night of the Long Knives if you want, but definitely not the Holocaust. Stalin and Mao did it to stay in power. Hitler's power wasn't threatened. He just woke up one day and decided to exterminate a race. A little bit of difference there, buddy.

The 'cleansing' in Tibet was not about race, but about ethnicity and culture. Does that make it somehow better?

Uh, no it was about ideology. Tibetan serfdom and theocracy was perceived as a threat to communism, hence the temples were destroyed and political leaders were executed. It wasn't a systematic ethnic genocide.

Mao is one of the biggest mass murderers of all time, the numbers speak for themselves.

Numbers don't mean much. If I ran over someone with my car, does that make me as bad as someone who rapes, tortures, and kills a 13 year old girl, because she was Jewish? There's a difference . Manslaughter isn't second degree murder, and definitely isn't first degree murder.

20 million people starve because of mismanagement, poor harvests, and eventually, widespread famine. They weren't murdered. The Red Guard persecuted people and burned books because there was a breakdown of society. Understand the difference, and stop repeating the same statistics. (And don't tell me Mao executed 11 million subversive politicians.)

 

[Louis XXIV]

There's a difference between killing a few political enemies to stay in power, and marshalling the efforts of an entire nation to systematically exterminate a race. Please recognise that.

How about we compromise and just compare Mao to Stalin, instead of Hitler?

Incidentally, I'd consider many countries to be poor. I won't pretend to know much about Tanzania, but I'd consider much of Latin America to be poor. Poor, of course, is a relative thing, but it does not have to mean complete and total poverty.

 

[Headline]

Why are the communist supporters hate unions? I remember the founder of communism, Lenin, preaching organized unions against the owners.

Chinese communism is so twisted.

Some people actually believe that it was communism that actually brought the prosperity China is enjoying right now.

 

[Headline]

Now, Taiwan. Taiwan, democracy?! BULL****. Have you seen how their elections are like?! Have you seen footages of the campaigns and the aftermath?! A democratic election does not follow with great anger. A democratic election does not follow with weeks, and months of protest, recounts, and hate speeches. A democratic election does not contain a half dozen scandals. I mean, use the Americans' recent election as an example. John Kerry was about to lose, he sees it, and he announces his defeat, and SHAKES HANDS with Bush. What does the losing party in Taiwan do compared to that?! And every other election I've seen here follows with a hand shaking, and a nice congraduation. Taiwan's democracy is the biggest load of bull**** I've ever seen.

Open media scandal is better then scandals that were never revealed. In China, there are way more scandals that were blocked by the CCP media machine. Although Taiwanese democracy is not perfect, it is still very liberal in comparison to China. In China, "face" (not be shamed) is worth more than social issues. Those political leaders would never blame themselves in the public.

 

[ironduck]

WeimingS, I don't know why you are an apologist for the communists who willfully murdered millions of people. I don't want to know either. It is very, very clear that you belittle the terrors that happened during communists leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and probably also Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Tito, et. al.

If you really want to learn about the crimes perpetrated during various communists dictatorships I suggest you start reading up on it. Maybe start with Stephane Courtois: Le Livre Noir du Communism. Also take a look at the link from before: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm and here is another for you: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm and another: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Irrelevant. The Gulags and labour camps didn't have gas chambers designed to kill. They didn't have doctors performing vivisections either. Nor did they have crematoriums. Or lampshades made from human skin. It's unbelievable that you could compare a Nazi concentration camp with a pseudo-prison labour camp.

Calling Gulags and Mao's labour camps for 'irrelevant' is what one would expect from a Stalinist apologist. These camps were used to get rid of enemies of any kind, indiscriminately using them as slave labour until they die. This is what took place in most of the nazis concentration camps as well. I'm sure Mao and Stalin would have had no scruples making tools out of human bodies, they did so when they were alive. You call them 'pseudo-prison labour camp'. That is a disgusting lack of respect for the millions upon millions who perished there.

There's a difference between killing a few political enemies to stay in power,

So the approximately 3 million people Mao executed in his purges of political enemies are 'a few' to you? And the millions killed during Stalin's purges? I don't want to know what you consider 'many' then.

Are you trying to compare Stalinist purges with the Holocaust? Oiveh, hope there aren't any Jewish people in here. How many political enemies did Stalin kill? 100? 500? Probably, but definitely not 11 million. Compare it to Night of the Long Knives if you want, but definitely not the Holocaust. Stalin and Mao did it to stay in power. Hitler's power wasn't threatened. He just woke up one day and decided to exterminate a race. A little bit of difference there, buddy.

Stalin killed several million. The sources vary because the deaths aren't as meticulously recorded as by the nazis. It's clear that you did not even look at the link I gave you or you would see that your '500' number is not only ridiculous, but also shows a complete lack of understanding of what was the Stalinist Terror.

Uh, no it was about ideology. Tibetan serfdom and theocracy was perceived as a threat to communism, hence the temples were destroyed and political leaders were executed. It wasn't a systematic ethnic genocide.

It was never about ideology for these communist dictators, it was about power. Killing hundreds of thousands of Tibetan civilians is not about ideology. It's about power. Kill them all rather than worry about a later uprising.

Numbers don't mean much. If I ran over someone with my car, does that make me as bad as someone who rapes, tortures, and kills a 13 year old girl, because she was Jewish? There's a difference . Manslaughter isn't second degree murder, and definitely isn't first degree murder.

Earth to you: Stalin, Mao, and their kind murdered millions of people in cold blood. It may not mean anything to you, but it meant a lot to all those people who were involved.

20 million people starve because of mismanagement, poor harvests, and eventually, widespread famine. They weren't murdered. The Red Guard persecuted people and burned books because there was a breakdown of society. Understand the difference, and stop repeating the same statistics. (And don't tell me Mao executed 11 million subversive politicians.)

Actually, Mao knew about the millions of people that starved to death during the collectivization under Stalin. Yet, he went along and did not only that, but took it even further. It was not just a case of mismanagment, it was outright murder. When people started dying like flies Mao took his communes ideas even further. As for Stalin, he largely force-starved millions of people to death, it was a political tool for him.

It is typical for a Stalinist apologist to excuse these mass starvations with 'mismanagement' and 'poor harvest'.

I find your defense of these Stalinist regimes and their inexcusable mass murder disgusting.

Hitler's mass murder on civilians - which included a lot more than the 5-6 million jews - was an atrocity in human history. No one in their right mind denies that. No one in their right mind should deny the atrocities commited under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim-Il-Sung, Kim-Jong-Il, Tito, etc, etc either.

 

[luiz]

There's a difference between killing a few political enemies to stay in power, and marshalling the efforts of an entire nation to systematically exterminate a race. Please recognise that.

A few? Mao only killed a few political enemies?
At the height of the Cultural revolution, people were dragged out of the houses and shot for petty comments that were interpreted as "anti-revolutionary".

What about them? I'd read a little into them first.

I sure recommend that you read about them.

Millions of people died from famine. They weren't killed by Mao's soldiers in concentration camps. Tibetan temples were destroyed and Tibet's theocratic dictators were killed by the Red Guards, when China fell into chaos and society broke down. Hitler's genocide wasn't accompanied by breakdown of society. In fact, the killing process was very calculated and industrialised. There were mathematicians working to calculate the most effective way to kill. In case you haven't caught on, the two incidences can't be compared.

Apologies, apologies...
Mao sent hordes to forced labour camps. If they died of starvation it's blood on his hands. He started the Cultural Revolution, which lead to countless political executions. That's blood on his hands. There is an ocean of blood in Mao's hands.

The car ownership ratio for investment bankers on Manhattan is probably even smaller. That doesn't make them poor.

That's not true. Rich New Yorkers own cars, almost all of them.

74 million potential car owners in China signifies a large sector of Chinese society is middle-class and well off. It's not "dirt poor", as you so readily suggest.

74 million out of over 1.2 billion? Not impressive.

Actually, it's 121 out of 232. Wikipedia says it ranks 97/192. Its source is the International Monetary Fund, which I would say is the more reliable source when it comes to economics.

The CIA World Factbook ranked 232 nations, China ranked in 121. That's the poorer half.

Really? This graph begs to differ

The GDP change even dips to 4% for some years. Even if Indian GDP growth averaged 5.5%-6%, my statement still doesn't exaggerate too much. But you're arguing over semantics here. In the end, your original claim that "China is on pair with India" is decidedly false.
[/quote

staggering=stagnating?

The CIA World Factbook claims that indian average growth rate from 1994 to the present was of 6.8%. Allow me to take their word over the "atimes".

And I'll tell you what stament was false. Your statement about India having a stagnating economy.

Haha, I can picture a bratty teenage girl saying the exact same thing. "Are you seriously suggesting that there are people in the world who can live without cable TV?" Your incredulity doesn't make your claims factual. Broaden your horizons my friend.

Yeah, fair comparisson...
I'm sure U$ 5,600 can provide a comfortable lifestyle...

China's poorer than France, Britain and Germany? Really?
But you seem to think China's as poor as Congo or Bangladesh. That's an unequivocal lie.

I never said it is as poor as Congo. I'll tell you this, though, it is closer to Congo than it is to France and Germany.

There are also no taxes in China. Most Chinese citizens are farmers who grow their own food. Not everyone has Western-type expenses. And people who can't afford two cars and a bungalow aren't "dirt poor". Believe it or not, there's a huge difference of living standards between Chinese farmers and Somalian farmers.

I know there is difference between chinese farmers and somali farmers. But there are more similarities between those 2 than between chinese farmers and their western counterparts.

Therein lies the contested claim, and the real issue. What is your definition of "very poor"? It seems to be any country incapable of sustaining wholesale western lifestyle.
.
That, to me, seems to be an unfair definition of "very poor". If China is "very poor", then what status can be ascribed to Tanzania? Or the nearly 100 countries that are more poor than China?

That was my gripe with your original post. You painted a distorted picture of China. You describe China like it was in the 1970s. You were also quick to belittle China by aggrandizing other countries, like India. That, to me, seemed very unreasonable. Whether or not you intrinsically hate China can't be proven, but you're certainly suggestive of that in your tone.

This ridiculous debate can be concluded if we both agree on the definition of "very poor".

How about:

Rich (GDP >= $20 000 USD) - America, France, Britain, Spain, etc.
Wealthy ($10 000 <= GDP < $20 000) - Hungary, Kuwait, Poland, Mexico, etc.
Moderate ($5 000 <= GDP < $10 000) - China, Brazil, Turkey, etc.
Poor ($2 000 <= GDP < $5 000) - Cuba, Honduras, Ghana, etc.
Very poor (GDP <$2000) - Haiti, Mozambique, Somalia, Kenya, etc.

Wow, Mexico is wealthy? That's news to me!
Brazil is moderate? Yeah, I'll tell that to the one million people who live in slums just in Rio...
Brazil is on the bottom of the "poor category", Mexico is on the middle of it. China is probably among the better ones in the "very poor" category. And there are the "hopelessly poor" ones.

That's how I'd define it.
Poverty to me means just that, poverty. How badly does people live in those countries? What can they afford to buy?

Your reaction to my posts was very angry. It did not seem like you just had problems with my definition of poverty.

And I'm still wondering why would I hate China. How can one hate a nation? I can certainly hate a government(the CCP) or an economic model(maoism), but a nation?

 

[Dann]

I see you guys are having fun.

You are both correct, in a way. China is at the same time poor and not poor. It is a land of supreme contrasts. On the one hand, you have the glitzy cities like Shanghai where people have a standard of living comparable with the First World, while on the other hand you have impoverished hamlets where there is only one TV set in the entire village. I know because I've seen them firsthand.

I just want to comment on this bit:

OK, the chinese per capita income in PPP is of U$5,600. Slightly better than I though, but that is still pretty low and it is still much inferior to those of the Latin American coutries.

U$5,600 = about 44,800 Yuan a year = 3,700+ Yuan a month! That is something the billions of factory workers and farmers here can only dream of. The workers in the factories in Shenzhen's satellite towns get paid 500+ Yuan a month! And that is already enough to attract a steady supply of applicants from the interior. One can only imagine how much less they are earning in the provincial villages.

3,700+ Yuan a month is way enough to live comfortably here. Not enough to buy a car, sure, but enough to pay the mortgage on the house, eat well, and still have enough left over for the occasional luxury.

Of course, there are also those who earn 5 figure salaries a month. But I daresay their numbers pale in comparison to the hordes of low-wage earners.

Also:

Some people actually believe that it was communism that actually brought the prosperity China is enjoying right now.

Yeah. Silly aren't they? People here also know it to be untrue, but don't want to discuss it. The government, for it's part, is continuing the charade...

 

[Plotinus]

I'm sure U$ 5,600 can provide a comfortable lifestyle...

I'm certainly not going to go along with what WeimingS is saying, but I really do think you're barking up the wrong tree on this point - I don't think you understand just how much exchange rates matter. I used to live on £6,000 a year in one of the most expensive parts of Britain and I did fine. If I had had that identical income in New Zealand, where I also used to live, I would have been very comfortable. And if I'd had it in India I'd have lived like a king. I don't doubt for a moment that USD5,600 could provide for a perfectly comfortable lifestyle in China. If you were Chinese you'd probably insist that Americans can't live comfortably because of how much things cost there.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I believe the number of 5600 has been adjusted for both exchange rates and the cost of items purchased.

 

[luiz]

I'm certainly not going to go along with what WeimingS is saying, but I really do think you're barking up the wrong tree on this point - I don't think you understand just how much exchange rates matter. I used to live on £6,000 a year in one of the most expensive parts of Britain and I did fine. If I had had that identical income in New Zealand, where I also used to live, I would have been very comfortable. And if I'd had it in India I'd have lived like a king. I don't doubt for a moment that USD5,600 could provide for a perfectly comfortable lifestyle in China. If you were Chinese you'd probably insist that Americans can't live comfortably because of how much things cost there.

The things is, in actuall cash the average income of the chinese is much below 5,600 dollars a years. This number is already translated to PPP. In other words, it is a comparisson tool. This number is already taking into consideration the much cheaper prices in China.

If you don't take the cheaper prices in consideration, than we must use a number around U$ 2,800 a year.

 

[luiz]

I see you guys are having fun.

You are both correct, in a way. China is at the same time poor and not poor. It is a land of supreme contrasts. On the one hand, you have the glitzy cities like Shanghai where people have a standard of living comparable with the First World, while on the other hand you have impoverished hamlets where there is only one TV set in the entire village. I know because I've seen them firsthand.

I agree Dann, but what you just said is characteristic of poor countries.
There is always an elite that lives as well as or nearly as well as americans and europeans, while the masses live in deep poverty.

One of the many nicknames of Brazil is "Belindia". That's because part if it is as rich as Belgium and the other is as poor as India. Of course, today India could also be classified as a "Belindia", and so could China. But to claim that those nations are not very poor is just wrong.

And I'm still awed as to why would people take offense in such a claim.