EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
656 points (70.5% liked)
Memes
45687 readers
572 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Communism increasing life expectancy!?
Shanghai Stock Exchange: http://english.sse.com.cn/
Beijing Stock Exchange: www.bse.cn
Shenzhen Stock Exchange: https://www.szse.cn/English/index.html
That's more stock exchanges than the US, comrade!
Oh, so you consider Deng's reforms to be right-deviationist? Are you a Maoist, then?
Whether you consider the CPC to be communist or not, the fact still remains that they've made a lot of improvements in the lives of the average Chinese person.
Deng was alive and well when two of those stock exchanges were opened and the whole argument was "look at the improvements only possible under Communism".
How do you say "moving the goalposts" in Mandarin? Actually, no need to answer as you are all ~~suburban~~ petit bourgeois kids from the US.
That's... what I said? Obviously, Deng was the one who implemented economic reforms, such as opening stock exchanges and allowing foreign investment. Some Maoists consider this to be right-deviationist and counter-revolutionary, and that he should've continued more in line with Mao's policies. That's why I asked if you're a Maoist, since you consider his reforms incompatible with socialism.
I'm not sure who's whole argument was "look at the improvements only possible under Communism." China's conditions were much worse off than places like the US, so obviously it's possible to improve conditions to be better than per-revolutionary China (which is not saying much) without communism. It's just that in China's case, it was the communists that did it.
Mao died in 1976, which is where that life expectancy graph is somewhere in the mid 50s. Super impressive.
Over 60, actually. I think that doubling live expectancy over a single generation is, in fact, pretty impressive.
So I take it you're not a Maoist or a Dengist. Can you tell me who you think should've been in power in China instead? The KMT? You can see how much they did on the graph, if you don't find the CPC's numbers impressive then I'm sure you'd hate them even more. The invading Japanese perhaps? The European colonizers? Or maybe you think the Qing dynasty should never have been overthrown.
Correlation or causation? You know that industrialization increases life expectancy, right?
It's not hard to double your life expectancy when you're starting out with the same life expectancy that existed in the Roman Empire almost 2,000 years prior. Thanks, Mao!
Of course I know that, did you not read what I said?
"China's conditions were much worse off than places like the US, so obviously it's possible to improve conditions to be better than per-revolutionary China (which is not saying much) without communism."
It really is wild that no other faction was willing to do anything that would increase Chinese life expectancy above that of the Roman Empire, yes. I agree, thanks, Mao!
It's pretty funny that you criticize Deng for implenting economic reforms that led to further industrialization, while also crediting the rise in life expectancy to that very same industrialization.
What even is your ideology? And can you answer my question about who should've come to power instead of the communists?
So you agree it has nothing to do with communism and you're just trolling around the internet. Got it.
I have no idea what thought process led you to post that but ok.
There were a lot of really simple, basic improvements that the peasants in China desperately needed. Anybody could've done what was needed, but nobody else was willing to, because nobody else cared. There was no special technical economic policy that uplifted them, it was just a willingness to address their needs that no other faction possessed.
The entire point of this brilliant thread is that communism, not individuals, lifted people out of poverty. Numerous economic systems have high life expectancy (socialist, capitalist, etc) and the common denominator is basically just industrialization.
Who would have thought the ability to make nation-state quantities of medication extends lives?
That's all you fam, I never said anything like that. All I did was point to graph and say I liked it when people do things (and political projects) that make life expectancy skyrocket. You seem to have read a bunch of stuff into that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
I'm assuming you equally support all those capitalist countries that have high life expectancies. ~~Samsung Korea~~ I mean South Korea with it's life expectancy of 84 years is generally considered a great society on Hexbear, no?
Life expectancy doesn't always give the whole picture. For example, in my graph, there are times where China's life expectancy is rising very rapidly, but it was still considerably lower than that of other countries. It's necessary to analyze what policies lead to what results and what the reasons are for the success or failure of a given political project or policy.
I haven't studied South Korea's policies and material conditions closely enough to offer much of an informed analysis, as the world is a very big place. You could always make a thread about it on c/askchapo or something.
Could have saved us a lot of time, going all the way back to the post where you used life expectancy to try to paint a whole picture.
Just because it doesn't paint the full picture doesn't mean it isn't important. The data in this case shows some very clear conclusions.
Sometimes I try to post more in depth theory, the last time I tried that, everyone complained that it was TLDR.
I mean this genuinely - It seems like you're one of the more reasonable Hexbear users, just for saying this alone:
Intelligence is always knowing where your current knowledge ends. I don't have all the answers to everything either and it's easier to engage in discussion when both participants know their limitations, which is the bare minimum required for a good faith discussion. Virtually all other Hexbear users double down and go on the offensive when they are hit with something they don't know about, which is why I've developed a particular disdain for users from your instance and refrain from substantial engagement because it always devolves into sealioning. The only way I have found to engage with users from your instance is reflexively using their own debate strategies otherwise I'm constantly told I "don't know anything unless I've read insert-book-of-the-week".
I used South Korea because it's pretty much worse than the US in every regard. My joke, "Samsung Korea", wasn't an ignorant American's take thinking all they make are cell phones, rather, Samsung is basically at the top of their oligarchy and has more control over their government than US corporations, believe it or not. South Korea has one of the best life expectancies, but is one of the worse examples of capitalism.
I think your problem is that you jump to conclusions too quickly. I think you'll have better luck with Hexbears if you slow down and make sure you actually understand what our point is instead of just trying to win before you have a clear picture of what the other person's position is.
Oh well, double down I guess. A prominant Hexbear community is called "Dunking On Libs", which, as we both know, is going to other instances where they engage in "jumping to conclusions" and "just trying to win".
You almost had self awareness. Almost.
I'll leave you with what I wrote in my last post:
I can't speak for every user on my instance (nor can you for yours), but I can say that many of us also respond in kind to what we get. When you tried to dunk on me, you got PPB'd. You'll get the same if you lob baseless accusations (like calling us "the QAnon of the left") or confidently assert bad, uninformed takes.