• SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well it’s quite simple really, you have three choices:

      Fascism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.

      Marxism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.

      Neoliberalism: A very flawed ideology that takes economic freedom to an extreme and puts too much faith in unregulated free markets.

      Sounds like a no brainer choice to me.

        • SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          You can’t argue, period. Marxism can’t be argued for on its own merits. It needs fallacies, enemies, violence, and censorship to keep itself from collapsing.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            What merits does Marxism have? What fallacies, enemies, violence and censorship does it use to keep from collapsing?

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah no shit it was because of the reforms the socialists implemented that they were able to eradicate poverty, not sure how that’s supposed to help your point.

            Life expectancy nearly doubled while Mao was in power. that’s not “one of the biggest disasters in human history,” it was the single greatest improvement in quality of life on such a large scale in such a short time period ever.

            • SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah no shit it was because of the reforms the socialists implemented that they were able to eradicate poverty, not sure how that’s supposed to help your point.

              Do you even understand what the reforms were?

              Life expectancy nearly doubled while Mao was in power. that’s not “one of the biggest disasters in human history,” it was the single greatest improvement in quality of life on such a large scale in such a short time period ever.

              Mao killed somewhere between 40 million and 80 million people during his 27 year reign. He is widely considered to be the person responsible for the highest death toll in human history. The Great Leap Forward by itself is estimated to have somewhere between 15 million to 55 million deaths. The Great Chinese famine is the biggest famine ever recorded and is one of the worst anthropogenic disasters in human history. This is not the hill you should die on.

                • SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  China went through the Opium wars, the Sino-French war, the first Sino-Japanese war, the Russian invasions of northern China, the second Sino-Japanese war that led to the Japanese genocide against the Chinese, the Taiping Rebellion, the North Chinese famine, the Boxer Rebellion, the Dungan Revolt, the Chinese civil war, the Miao rebellion, Red Turban Rebellion, Panthay Rebellion, the Punti–Hakka Clan Wars, the 1911 revolution, the Laogai camps, the land reform movement, the cultural revolution, the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, the Great Leap Forward, and the list goes on and on. All of these events happened within the span of around 150 years, and the estimated death toll for them in aggregate is somewhere between 150 million to 200 million. Do you begin to comprehend how batshit crazy that is? Literally any sort of stability would’ve seen the life expectancy shoot up because there aren’t people dying left and right.

                  The same thing happened in Russia. They went through a lot of shit that ended up killing so many people, but once Stalin finally fucked off, the life expectancy went up. The same happened in Germany after WWII or India after the British or so many other countries that went through lots of horrible events in rapid succession. Once a stable government is in place, things will improve no matter how horrible the ruling regime is.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Bzzzt Sorry, that is incorrect.

                    You can see various dips in life expectancy prior to the communists coming to power - those dips represent the various wars you mentioned. The baseline, even in times of peace, was still less than 35. It wasn’t just the wars and instability, it was the abject poverty and exploitation that people had been living under. They had frequent famines, zero access to medical care, and most of what the peasants made went straight to the aristocratic landlords. The life expectancy sprung up extremely rapidly following the revolution, when it did not after any of the previous wars, because the main reason for it increasing was not the end of the war but the communists’ policies.

                    The communists put a stop to all of that, and though there was a lot of turmoil and missteps, they were enormously successful at improving the quality of life of the people. When they took power, China was a third world country, today, the average life expectancy is higher than that of the US. No other faction, certainly not the Nationalists, or the Japanese, or the warlords, or the Qing, would have been willing or able to do that.