Mao Zedong killed 45 million and is the greatest murderer in the world's history, the leadership of the mandate of heaven typically had local leaders who where only overthrown by the people if the ruled the people poorly. To be fair it's more of a form of local dictatorship where the citizens had the ability to switch leaders. (which may simply occur through debate and reasoning.) Conflict between warlords could occur, but was rare and killed far less than 45 million while it also ruled much longer than communism did.
I told you communism under Mao sucked. China isn't even communist anymore. They are centrist authoritarian liberals. And the deaths didn't come from him directly, or were they even a result if government democide. (Still bad though)
As you can see, 40 years a go 80% of China was in extreme poverty. I don't know how to prove to you that the majority of deaths were not democide. Its like a conspiracy theorist assigning you the BOP. Of course, all this happened after Mao's death
The UN mandated goal for developing nations with extreme poverty was to cut the extreme rate in half. China was the only nation to succeed in this goal, and far exceeded the expectations, in one of the most stunning economic revolutions. The administration that came after Mao's death instituted major reforms that led it closer to a free market economy. You can own your own business now, and its no longer communist. Its still authoritarian though, and that needs to change.
You said that Mao killed 45 million people. I argued that this was true, but not a result of direct or intentional killings. You countered this, which is why I argued back. You claim that Mao killed 45 million people, and probably not all by himself, so I'm left to assume that the government participated under his leadership. And I argue against this claim as the government did not commit any large scale democide. Did some exist? Yeah, but not on a organized level.
Well they are SLIGHTLY less poor, but today 72% of the chinese population makes less than $5 a day, and 40% make less than $2.50 a day. If the goal of communism is to be slightly less poor then I conced they've done it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
No, slightly less poor is a huge, fallacious understatement. The global poverty rate designated by the UN is 1.25$. Anything over the global poverty rate gives people a fair chance at survival. The average weath of a Chinese citizen went up 500%, and due to these reforms, 600 million people are fed and not starving. And due to obvious inflation rates, the Chinese dollar has a different value. Especially among the Chinese, and since many Chinese belong to state owned corporations, they do not receive high incomes, as housing and food is provided by the government.
And I appreciate your half concession. The actual number can be debated though, as I believe that one is highly inflated. None the less, a lot of people died, and his policies were controversial. Again, thanks for the concession.
I don't see how it's fallacious, can you list the fallacy. Anyways, notice that your graph continues post-2,000 you have even admitted that communist has already fallen in China so it seems unfair to attribute the lowered poverty rate to communism. (I just noticed this) In addition I received another page not found from your source however I will concedethis anyway since communism (arguably post-communism) lowered the extreme poverty rate.