About China
- Thread starter 秦始皇
- Start date
This thread is even more ludicrous, and more offensive, than the one on Adolph Hitler. The moderators should close it.
No, the famines during the Great Leap Forward were not caused by natural disaster, at least not in the only relevant sense: would the famines still have occurred, given the natural disasters, if Mao had responded with appropriate policies? The Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, who has written extensively on the causes of famine, frames the core of the argument in the quote below. Mao went on after the Great Leap to imprison and murder millions more of his countrymen in cynical attempts to maintain his power. He was a brutal, totalitarian, murderous tyrant. (The argument in this thread that ten million people is a small percentage of the population of China so - who cares? is either the single stupidest or single most evil argument I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.)
--- begin quote from Amartya Sen, J Democracy, 1999 [emphasis added]:
To complete this examination, we must go beyond the narrow confines of economic growth and scrutinize the broader demands of economic development, including the need for economic and social security. In that context, we have to look at the connection between political and civil rights, on the one hand, and the prevention of major economic disasters, on the other. Political and civil rights give people the opportunity to draw attention forcefully to general needs and to demand appropriate public action. The response of a government to the acute suffering of its people often depends on the pressure that is put on it. The exercise of political rights (such as voting, criticizing, protesting, and the like) can make a real difference to the political incentives that operate on a government.
I have discussed elsewhere the remarkable fact that, in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look: the recent famines of Ethiopia, Somalia, or other dictatorial regimes; famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; China's 1958-61 famine with the failure of the Great Leap Forward; or earlier still, the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule. China, although it was in many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years. The policies went uncriticized because there were no opposition parties in parliament, no free press, and no multiparty elections. Indeed, it is precisely this lack of challenge that allowed the deeply defective policies to continue even though they were killing millions each year. The same can be said about the world's two contemporary famines, occurring right now in North Korea and Sudan.
Famines are often associated with what look like natural disasters, and commentators often settle for the simplicity of explaining famines by pointing to these events: the floods in China during the failed Great Leap Forward, the droughts in Ethiopia, or crop failures in North Korea. Nevertheless, many countries with similar natural problems, or even worse ones, manage perfectly well, because a responsive government intervenes to help alleviate hunger. Since the primary victims of a famine are the indigent, deaths can be prevented by recreating incomes (for example, through employment programs), which makes food accessible to potential famine victims. Even the poorest democratic countries that have faced terrible droughts or floods or other natural disasters (such as India in 1973, or Zimbabwe and Botswana in the early 1980s) have been able to feed their people without experiencing a famine.
Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine, which I witnessed as a child, was in 1943, four years before independence), they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press.
No, the famines during the Great Leap Forward were not caused by natural disaster, at least not in the only relevant sense: would the famines still have occurred, given the natural disasters, if Mao had responded with appropriate policies? The Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, who has written extensively on the causes of famine, frames the core of the argument in the quote below. Mao went on after the Great Leap to imprison and murder millions more of his countrymen in cynical attempts to maintain his power. He was a brutal, totalitarian, murderous tyrant. (The argument in this thread that ten million people is a small percentage of the population of China so - who cares? is either the single stupidest or single most evil argument I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.)
--- begin quote from Amartya Sen, J Democracy, 1999 [emphasis added]:
To complete this examination, we must go beyond the narrow confines of economic growth and scrutinize the broader demands of economic development, including the need for economic and social security. In that context, we have to look at the connection between political and civil rights, on the one hand, and the prevention of major economic disasters, on the other. Political and civil rights give people the opportunity to draw attention forcefully to general needs and to demand appropriate public action. The response of a government to the acute suffering of its people often depends on the pressure that is put on it. The exercise of political rights (such as voting, criticizing, protesting, and the like) can make a real difference to the political incentives that operate on a government.
I have discussed elsewhere the remarkable fact that, in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look: the recent famines of Ethiopia, Somalia, or other dictatorial regimes; famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; China's 1958-61 famine with the failure of the Great Leap Forward; or earlier still, the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule. China, although it was in many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years. The policies went uncriticized because there were no opposition parties in parliament, no free press, and no multiparty elections. Indeed, it is precisely this lack of challenge that allowed the deeply defective policies to continue even though they were killing millions each year. The same can be said about the world's two contemporary famines, occurring right now in North Korea and Sudan.
Famines are often associated with what look like natural disasters, and commentators often settle for the simplicity of explaining famines by pointing to these events: the floods in China during the failed Great Leap Forward, the droughts in Ethiopia, or crop failures in North Korea. Nevertheless, many countries with similar natural problems, or even worse ones, manage perfectly well, because a responsive government intervenes to help alleviate hunger. Since the primary victims of a famine are the indigent, deaths can be prevented by recreating incomes (for example, through employment programs), which makes food accessible to potential famine victims. Even the poorest democratic countries that have faced terrible droughts or floods or other natural disasters (such as India in 1973, or Zimbabwe and Botswana in the early 1980s) have been able to feed their people without experiencing a famine.
Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine, which I witnessed as a child, was in 1943, four years before independence), they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press.
i gonna break down your post, because its very biased, u could argue that i am biased too, but i get my figures and fact from wikipedia.
again the hurrican in US, its a friggin natural disaster. can bush prevent it by "appropriate policy"?
COLD WAR is over/ if not, u will suffers fear of nuclear winter
so u are saying, people starve to death is because communism, but under democracy, people starve to death is because of alien rule.
Very persuasive!!
its like saying, people who believe in jesus will go to heaven when they die.
people who believe in islam will go to hell when they die.
people who are christian but went to hell is because they are stupid
not to mention even if the nationalist ruled china, it will still be single parliament, not election, no opposition.
natural disaster under communism are caused by bad policy
famine is preventable by recreating incomes.
but china has no economy because the whole country is torned by war.
no foreign trades and aids, because trade embargo every where, and some country still recognise nationalist as government of China.
today, china is still communist, but they now got money, any more famines?
also "El nino" hit china in 1959, and no body knows what that is at that time. preventable?
ok, the hurrican in US, its a friggin natural disaster. can bush prevent it by "appropriate policy"? and that three year disaster, with just flooding, it drowned/starved 3 million people straight, just that flooding is ranked 7th deadliest nature disaster of the century. then goes the drought with 60% of farms without water. not to mention that the life expectancy in china at that time is about 35 years. with "right policy", there will still be that many death anyway.Skedastic said:
again the hurrican in US, its a friggin natural disaster. can bush prevent it by "appropriate policy"?
of course percentage counts, u could go and kill 100 ants. and nobody will care about it, if u go and kill 100 river dolphines. u will be sentenced to death, because there is only about 50 of them around.
again, stop the Democracy VS communism stuff
COLD WAR is over/ if not, u will suffers fear of nuclear winter
so u are saying, people starve to death is because communism, but under democracy, people starve to death is because of alien rule.
Very persuasive!!
its like saying, people who believe in jesus will go to heaven when they die.
people who believe in islam will go to hell when they die.
people who are christian but went to hell is because they are stupid
again, even with the "Appropriate policy" u just cant prevent a three year natural disaster.
not to mention even if the nationalist ruled china, it will still be single parliament, not election, no opposition.
to sum up what u said in this paragraph
natural disaster under communism are caused by bad policy
famine is preventable by recreating incomes.
but china has no economy because the whole country is torned by war.
no foreign trades and aids, because trade embargo every where, and some country still recognise nationalist as government of China.
today, china is still communist, but they now got money, any more famines?
again u are saying natural disaster is preventable.
also "El nino" hit china in 1959, and no body knows what that is at that time. preventable?
wikipedia said:
panzooka, I think the point that Skedastic is trying to get that is those disasters do happen but the effects can be minimalized with a more efficient governments. Bush certainly couldn't have prevented Katrina from hitting New Orleans, but what he could have done is assign more appropriate people to handle the rescue missions, and NOT take the funds away from the levi contructions. Many deaths that could have been saved were due to his poor policies in dealing with New Orleans. The case with Mao is that had he implemented a more suitable policies with China, the negative effects of those famines would have been reduced. Also don't foget the fact that HE ORDERED THE PEASENTS TO KILL BIRDS, WHO WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FAMINE BY A LOT !
However, his terrible policies went unchallanged to to his monopoly in the government. Right now, Chairman Hu has the three main power in government, and it is something like military control, party control... etc. How do you oppose a man who has ALL THESE POWER ? You cannot, that's the problem. Plus, Mao was such an unsecure person that he wouldn't bother asking for the right help. Don't know what El Nino is ? Maybe ask some intelligent people around you instead of killing them here and there ? Maybe ask other countries for help if that's needed ? No, he wouldn't do that because of his insecurity, and basically screwed up China even till today.
However, his terrible policies went unchallanged to to his monopoly in the government. Right now, Chairman Hu has the three main power in government, and it is something like military control, party control... etc. How do you oppose a man who has ALL THESE POWER ? You cannot, that's the problem. Plus, Mao was such an unsecure person that he wouldn't bother asking for the right help. Don't know what El Nino is ? Maybe ask some intelligent people around you instead of killing them here and there ? Maybe ask other countries for help if that's needed ? No, he wouldn't do that because of his insecurity, and basically screwed up China even till today.
i know that natural disaster is not preventable. and death can be reduced by better policy. but u cant blame the total death on Mao as if the natural disaster is part of Mao's doing.
what if there were no natural disaster, and great leap forward failed, but only starved 2 million not 20? i guess the number counts, and we wont be here today argueing this, atleast not as fierce.
also Mao asked for help, from the Russian, read my previous post.
page 2 this thread
the soviet were only friend at that time, and china is the center communism power in asia, while the soviet is the center communism power in europ and other part of the world.
because china is communist, other country refuse to trade and help.
there are even numbers of country that still recognises nationalist as chinese government.
Mao is totalitarian we cant deny. but decision is not made by him, but by the party. also with the pressure and influence of the soviet.
what if there were no natural disaster, and great leap forward failed, but only starved 2 million not 20? i guess the number counts, and we wont be here today argueing this, atleast not as fierce.
also Mao asked for help, from the Russian, read my previous post.
page 2 this thread
the soviet were only friend at that time, and china is the center communism power in asia, while the soviet is the center communism power in europ and other part of the world.
because china is communist, other country refuse to trade and help.
there are even numbers of country that still recognises nationalist as chinese government.
Mao is totalitarian we cant deny. but decision is not made by him, but by the party. also with the pressure and influence of the soviet.
panzooka said:
Then you should spend many years studying the relevant history, economics, and politics before you even form a firm opinion, much less express a firm opinion in public. Wikipedia is not a good source on anything, and particularly not on even remotely controversial subjects. Moreover, you appear to have spent an entire minute reading Wikidedia, which you apparently misunderstood because even it doesn't support your opinion, before mocking the extensive writings of Amartya Sen on the subject (a bio of Professor Sen can be found http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/sen/bio.pdf, and his own thoughts on his research on the causes of famine can be found at http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1998/sen-autobio.html).
I don't even know how to respond to your "arguments" because they consist almost entirely of non sequiturs. I don't think you understood what I said and clearly you did not understand the point Sen was making in the quoted text. Please stop defending Mao until such time as you actually acquaint yourself with the relevant issues; your posts are no less offensive than someone announcing that Adolph Hitler was just misunderstood, he kick-started the German economy and, hey, only killed a relatively small percentage of the population of Europe. And besides, arguing otherwise will lead to... nuclear winter and the abuse of... "dolphines," or something like that.
I don't think Mao belongs in the same category as Hitler. While Mao did kill a lot of people who criticized him, most of the people who died because of Mao died unintentionally. That, however, still makes him a total incompetent when it comes to economics and science. You can keep shouting drought and flooding until you're completely blue in the face, but there's still no excuse for a famine of that magnitude. I used to live in the Philippines, a third-world country run by corrupt halfwits. Our breadbasket region got hit by a powerful earthquake in 1990 followed by Mt. Pinatubo exploding a year after. Our corrupt halfwits in the government still managed to stave off a famine. Why? Because you have to be completely incompetent like Mao for a famine to actually occur.
A good comparison to Mao would be Jan Pablo Davila, an employee of Codelco, a state-owned Chilean company. While trying to make a financial transaction, he typed "buy" instead of "sell". He made a series of financial transactions afterwards to try to recoup his losses but ended up losing 0.5% of Chile's entire GDP by himself. Now, imagine somebody like that being the most powerful man in a country, instead of just a lowly employee in a state-run company.
Mao freed China from imperialism and he is a good wartime leader. However, you have to be pretty brainwashed by propaganda to believe he's an effective peacetime leader. When he died, the people that came to power immediately removed the Gang of Four and reversed most of Mao's policies. All of China's current economic success can be attributed to Deng Xiaoping and his succesors.
A good comparison to Mao would be Jan Pablo Davila, an employee of Codelco, a state-owned Chilean company. While trying to make a financial transaction, he typed "buy" instead of "sell". He made a series of financial transactions afterwards to try to recoup his losses but ended up losing 0.5% of Chile's entire GDP by himself. Now, imagine somebody like that being the most powerful man in a country, instead of just a lowly employee in a state-run company.
Mao freed China from imperialism and he is a good wartime leader. However, you have to be pretty brainwashed by propaganda to believe he's an effective peacetime leader. When he died, the people that came to power immediately removed the Gang of Four and reversed most of Mao's policies. All of China's current economic success can be attributed to Deng Xiaoping and his succesors.
Mondo_ said:
Hey seriously I hope someone would mod him in. For those who didn't know who he is, Zhuge Liang is a military advisor and strategist of the Shu Kingdom, a very clever and wise one may I add. And the special unit in Civ4 (cho ko nu) is named after him. He is one of the most interesting people in Chinese history in my opinion and it is absolutely FUN to play as him. He's not a king of China but who care anyway, this is just a game.
Multiplicity
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 60
NetMapel said:
You may have the right by working more, but won't necessarily net you the capacity to purchase more food. The reason why you don't hear them starving to death is because it is not in the interest of the media to run stories on poverty and starvation. Look at who owns the media. They are all capitalist, wealthy individuals, who would not like to show the weaknesses in capitalism as it threatens their ability to acquire more wealth through the system.
so u are saying the figures came out of wikipedia is more biased than your arguements.
funny some one in this thread previously said u should refer to wikipedia.
funny some one in this thread previously said u should refer to wikipedia.
u know this is considered personal attack, under internet freedom of speech, and the forum rule
I would like to guess, any guys knew?
1. From 1840 to 1911, how many Chinese Culture are damaged then moved to Western Museum and still not return till now?
2. From 1911 to 1931, how many Western Countries are fighting with eachother (not China) on China Land?
3. From 1931 to 1945, how many Chinese Culture are damaged by Japan?
4. From 1945 to 1949, how many Chinese Culture are damaged by KMT?
5. From which year, Han did not have their ethnically dress and adopt cheong-sam?
6. Who give the power to Chinese people that they can challenge authorities however the people abuse the right?
7. What's the difference between state poverty and current pension, public health system?
8. Who bring Deng XiaoPing back to authority before he die?
9. Why most western people dislike Mao but Chinese people still love him?
10. Why Chinese is brainwashed even they are living oversea?
I can list much more... wait and see...
1. From 1840 to 1911, how many Chinese Culture are damaged then moved to Western Museum and still not return till now?
2. From 1911 to 1931, how many Western Countries are fighting with eachother (not China) on China Land?
3. From 1931 to 1945, how many Chinese Culture are damaged by Japan?
4. From 1945 to 1949, how many Chinese Culture are damaged by KMT?
5. From which year, Han did not have their ethnically dress and adopt cheong-sam?
6. Who give the power to Chinese people that they can challenge authorities however the people abuse the right?
7. What's the difference between state poverty and current pension, public health system?
8. Who bring Deng XiaoPing back to authority before he die?
9. Why most western people dislike Mao but Chinese people still love him?
10. Why Chinese is brainwashed even they are living oversea?
I can list much more... wait and see...
Bah, so that's what Cho Ko Nu meansmag827 said:
I thought about it for a very long time and still couldn't figure out what it means. Maybe they should rename it to Zhuge Nu , haha I say it would be very interesting to have him as a Chinese leader because of what he did for the Shu Kingdom during the Three Kingdom period. He would be like Ghandi of India, who was never a leader politically, but spiritually and philisophically.Multiplicity, I understand what you mean, but if you look at the earning per capita in China and US, for example, you will see a HUGE difference. While China's GDP is growing at a high rate of 9.5%, that is the shield that the Chinese governments use to hide individual earnings, which are quite low compared to US. There are some REAL rural areas in China that we simply cannot imagine.
panzooka said:
No, I am saying that reading a page in any encyclopedia is not sufficient background on any even moderately complex subject to arrive at a firm opinion. It is also the case that Wikipedia is not a good source any most subject and particularly on controversial subjects, because the entries are not generally written by experts. However, if you check Wikipedia again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Outcome
you will find that, in fact, the Wikipedia entry is completely consistent with the points I made in this thread. Indeed, you may notice a striking similarity between the Wikipedia entry and my remarks! (I added that both because it's a good addition to that entry and to illustrate to you very forcefully why you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia.)
I am sorry you consider the observation that reading an encyclopedia article on a given topic doesn't make you fully informed on that topic a "personal attack." But it isn't a personal attack, it's a valid observation, and one you should expect if you rant about how illogical argument from Nobel laureates are based on your reading of an encyclopedia article.
still wikipedia is very good and considerably unbiased source.
because people from around the world shares opinions, and controversal topics were discussed and investigated more than an expert's opinion.
also i think u shouldn't rely on expert opinions, thats why the US have votings, not some experts to decides who gets to run the nation.
because people from around the world shares opinions, and controversal topics were discussed and investigated more than an expert's opinion.
also i think u shouldn't rely on expert opinions, thats why the US have votings, not some experts to decides who gets to run the nation.
ionimplant
Prince
winners write the history...
Legionarius
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 39
panzooka said:
That makes no sense. ANYONE can edit an article on wikipedia. That means that there is a possbility a bias can shift from one side or another. Hell, I could change Mao's article of the KMT's article to make either one look more "evil." Wikipedia is a great source for getting general information, but one shouldn't rely on it.
Similar threads
